The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Assembly Business

Mr David Ford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the last sitting before Christmas, the hon Member for North Down, Mr McCartney, left his seat, came to this side of the Chamber and was involved in an altercation with my Colleague Mr Close and me. At the time, and on a point of order, I said that I had been assaulted, but I did not realise that a point of order could not be taken during a Division.
I wish to inform you and the Assembly, since there has been a degree of interest, that shortly after the incident Mr McCartney apologized to me for his behaviour. I have accepted the apology in the spirit in which it was offered, and I consider the issue closed. I realise that it would have been proper to raise this in Mr. McCartney’s presence, but he was only in the Chamber for a few minutes yesterday, and I did not want the matter to hang on any longer than this.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the Member for clarifying the matter. I did not see the altercation though I understand that there was something of the kind. I am glad that in the rosy glow of the Christmas period the matter has been so amicably resolved between the two Members.
Let us hope that if peace has broken out in that context, it is a presage of greater things to come.

Skill Shortage

Mr Danny O'Connor: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to take immediate steps to address the problem of skill shortage in Northern Ireland, particularly in the field of health and social services.
I thank the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for being here. The purpose of the motion is to stimulate debate on the situation that exists. It is about looking forward to the future and developing a strategic plan to ensure that the public and private sectors will have their needs met by the training and employment that we provide so that we will be in a much better position to encourage inward investment and safeguard the jobs that already exist in NorthernIreland. I made particular reference to health and social services in the title of my motion, and I know that some of the skill areas that I want to touch upon are not directly the responsibility of the Minister. However, it is something into which the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment has an input, along with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
I have been informed by my local health trust that there is a chronic shortage of speech and occupational therapists. People who have suffered strokes wait over a year to see an occupational therapist. We have been told that money is available to employ them, but there is a shortage of such staff due to the limited number of university places for occupational therapists. There is also a limited number of university places available for speech therapists, approximately 20 to 25places each year. The waiting list arises because a large percentage of the people who are trained are women. They enter the profession, but when they have children they sometimes wish to job-share. According to the Homefirst Community Trust, they are statistically more likely to work part time when they have families. That should be facilitated in whatever way possible, but there must be a strategic approach to deal with the matter. In the Homefirst Community Trust area there are 100 health visitors, and only one is male. We could do more to promote these occupations as valuable and worthwhile to encourage more men to join them.
I want to move on to the needs of industry. On 15December2000, the Minister announced the introduction of access bursaries and the abolition of tuition fees in certain skilled areas such as the software, engineering, electronics, manufacturing and hospitality industries. That is an innovative approach, and it is only the beginning. In future, we would like to encourage people to become involved in areas in which we have identified shortages. I do not see the point of continually training the same number of people as in previous years. We need to focus that training in areas in which it is most needed. We need to identify where our industry wants to be in five, 10 and 15 years’ time and plan to produce the graduates and other qualified people whom we need. Academic qualifications are important, but vocational qualifications are equally so.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
We are talking about building new houses. Thousands of new homes are needed each year, and it is important that we have skilled craftsmen available to build them. We are talking about projects such as new railways, and, again, we must have the skilled craftsmen capable of carrying out those infrastructure improvements that we want in Northern Ireland.
To build a better and fairer society for everybody here, we must try to improve access for people who live in areas of social and economic need. We need to get more people coming forward from areas of high unemployment to ensure that the entire Northern Ireland economy becomes prosperous, rather than just areas such as east Antrim, west Tyrone, and south Down. To do that we need to focus on working with other Departments in the Administration. However, that will only happen if we have a workforce that is highly skilled academically, and, through the further education colleges, vocationally. I welcome the measures already taken by the Minister in that regard.
I am sure that Members will wish to touch on many other issues, and I will be glad to listen to them. I again thank the Minister for the measures that he introduced on 15 December. That was a first step, but it is not the end of the road. We need to adopt a more holistic approach to ensure that it is not just Government Departments and the public sector that have their needs met in future. Our industries must have their needs met too so that they can expand, employ and help Northern Ireland to become a more prosperous place for us all to live in.

Dr Esmond Birnie: First of all, there is the general issue of skills shortages, to which Mr O’Connor rightly referred. I will comment on that first because it lies entirely within the responsibility of the Department of Further and Higher Education, Training and Employment.
The departmental Committee welcomes the efforts that are being made in that area, particularly by the Training and Employment Agency. These include the setting up of the skills task force in recent years and, more recently, the creation of the priority skills unit in the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre (NIERC). These are designed to pinpoint areas in the economy in which, as Mr O’Connor said, there may be a deficiency in skills.
Northern Ireland needs to be aware — and I think the Training and Employment Agency shows awareness of this — that there are various international models that show how we could work out what gaps exist between the types of labour skills being demanded and the types being supplied. One such model is associated with the Netherlands economy and another with the Belgian economy. Northern Ireland, as a small regional economy, should pay careful attention to international best practice. I am agnostic on which international model on the identification of skills gaps should be used in this case. We must continue to review the evidence.
The Committee has an ongoing inquiry relating to this area, which, in part, the motion refers to. It is our intention to bring a report to the Assembly in due course. We have already received over 90 written submissions from a range of private and public bodies on training for industry, which indicates the importance of the subject and the level of interest that there is. At the moment, the Committee is taking evidence from representatives from business organisations, private employers, the community education sector, further education, higher education and other relevant groups.
At this stage, it is not possible for me, as Chairperson, to report on the findings of the Committee. Much is being uncovered which is of interest, and we hope to report later this year. I suspect that the commentator John Simpson was correct when he argued in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ recently that if we define IT skills broadly, there is a shortage of skills in that area.
I would like to make three points on a related matter. First, there is clear evidence of an underprovision of basic skills. A reputable international survey suggests that about one in five adults in Northern Ireland —this is sadly a personal and economic tragedy and scandal — is found in the lowest category of literacy skills. The common test often used is the ability to read the instructions on a medicine bottle. Clearly, that could literally be a matter of life and death.
Sadly, because of past failings in education, around 20% of the Northern Ireland population have not been adequately schooled to read such relatively basic text. In that context — and the Committee has previously made this submission to the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and to the Minister of Finance and personnel — we were disappointed with the relatively small increase for basic adult education in the recent Budget. We would like to see further resources given there, perhaps through the medium of the Executive programme funds.
Secondly, there is the matter of skill shortages in general. The Northern Ireland economy increasingly demands high, specialist and sophisticated skills. This demand coexists with an increase in the level of so-called economic inactivity — persons who have completely withdrawn from the labour market for a variety of reasons. We also continue to have too many pockets of long-term unemployment, and all that is notwithstanding the undoubted achievement in the economy in lowering the average level of unemployment.
Thirdly, given changes in the labour market, family life and in the working and structure of the economy, the provision of training needs to be increasingly flexible — hence the emphasis on life-long learning, something which I am sure that the Committee entirely welcomes.
Many Members will agree that there is, perhaps, a problem with the way in which the motion has been worded. With the exception of a limited number of undergraduate courses at the University of Ulster that relate to some health service occupations, the provision of skills for the health sector is the responsibility of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Therefore, although I agree with the sentiments behind the motion, the wording should have reflected that fact.
There is evidence of insufficient labour supply in some parts of the health sector. Figures suggest a shortfall of up to 800 nurses and a need for more occupational therapists, GPs and senior specialists. I want to make two points about the provision of skilled health workers. First, for the UK as a whole, statistics suggest that the number of health personnel — be they doctors or nurses — per capita is low compared to the number in most other Western societies. Even if we were to fill the current gaps in the system, it could be argued that there would still be insufficient provision for health care, especially preventive care. That raises broader questions, which go beyond the scope of the debate and the remit of the Department and relate to the level of funding for health care and the methodologies used. Can we continue to rely simply on tax-based health care provision, or should we consider other models from Europe and the Western World? It is a controversial issue, which goes beyond the powers of the Assembly.
We talk about shortages of health personnel, but that may be only a convenient shorthand term to describe what is happening. The problem is not so much one of supplying trained medical staff from universities and colleges, but of retaining those graduates, particularly in hospitals in outlying parts of the Province. No doubt, other Members will give examples of particular hospitals.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: The Committee is grateful to Mr O’Connor for tabling the motion and focusing the House’s attention on the subject.
The underlying sentiment in the motion is that finding the correct approach to training for industry is of fundamental importance. On that depend our well-being and prosperity, and it is critical to a successful and healthy economy. It is vital that Northern Ireland be able to compete globally. A direct correlation between labour supply and demand is critical to the success of the economy.
The Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee has considered how training and education can measure up to the needs of industry. The Committee has taken evidence from business, education, training and church interests, from community and voluntary groups and from commentators in that field. They have told us that we need skills urgently. The emphasis is on "urgent". Speed is of the essence.
We have received evidence of problems with basic skills, including transferable skills, and finding and retaining skilled workers. That evidence has already been placed before the Committee. That is not to deny either the obvious strengths of our education and training systems or the innate ability of our people. However, we do have a tradition of exporting skills, which means that almost everywhere you look throughout the world, in whatever sector, people from Northern Ireland are contributing at all levels and in the forefront of medical, technical and social advances. In the past, that outflow of people resulted, in part, from the troubles. We all hope that in the future more of our young people will prefer to remain in Northern Ireland to study, work and bring up their families.
The export of skills does not indicate an oversupply of skills here. Locally, there are both perceptions and well-documented evidence of skills shortages, including transferable and specialist skills.
With regard to basic skills, the Training and Employment Agency reported in 1997 that one fifth of the 9,000 or so young people who entered Jobskills — the main vocational training programme — required training in basic literacy and numeracy. That is astounding, if not appalling. The correlation between the lack of basic skills and unemployment is well documented, as is the linkage with people at risk of social exclusion or involved in antisocial behaviour. Such low levels of literacy and numeracy among our young people must be a cause for concern to us all.
How can we work towards ensuring that our young people do not get trapped in a spiral of low expectations, underachievement and exclusion? Is the quality of jobs on offer adequate to give people a decent standard of living, job satisfaction and self-pride, things to which everyone aspires?
We cannot be complacent because of the current record low levels of unemployment and the increases in the rate of productivity. Northern Ireland’s productivity continues to be lower than that in the rest of the United Kingdom, despite recent increases in the rate of growth. It is questionable whether skill deficiencies have any significant affect on our firms’ productivity.
However, skill shortages add to the pressures on business. In a recent CBI survey, almost one in three firms said that their current workers lacked advanced IT or software skills, and 17% reported a lack of necessary managerial skills. While these skills can often be provided through a combination of workplace training and education, most businesses will look to the established education and training providers to foster the skills that they need.
I was disappointed to learn that, compared to the rest of the UK, small businesses in Northern Ireland recorded higher than average levels of dissatisfaction with the availability of suitable labour and the relevance of available training courses. In a recent independent survey conducted for the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland, only 17% were satisfied with the relevance of locally available training courses, while 50% were dissatisfied. While fewer than 30% of the respondents were satisfied with the levels of literacy and numeracy in the workforce, almost 40% were dissatisfied.
I set that against the strong evidence heard by the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee from the colleges of further and higher education about their desire to work with employers to provide the right skills at the right time. Clearly, something has gone amiss. The Committee also heard evidence from the skills task force, which has identified an agenda of urgent actions to address immediate skills shortages in priority areas. We are keen to support its determination to be proactive, to target resources more effectively and to pre-empt mismatch between skills supply and demand.
That requires a co-ordinated approach across Government. For example, it means that we need to be satisfied with the curricular approach to basic skills, including communication skills, teamworking and other transferable skills, which prepare people to make a contribution to the workplace. It also means that we need to target the areas of adult education already referred to by Dr Birnie — both basic education and progression — so that those who are not fulfilling their potential are supported and encouraged. Equally, it means looking at both individual and group incentives, so that a co-ordinated approach to full employment is adopted and followed.
Much more could be said, but I want to bring my remarks to a close. The Committee will report on this at a later stage. I reiterate the determination of the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to report to the Assembly on the contribution of education and training to meeting the skills needs of industry. There is much important work in this area for the Assembly to pursue, and we welcome the opportunity given to us by Mr O’Connor to flag up these issues.

Mr John Kelly: Go raibh míle maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion and thank Mr O’Connor for bringing it to the Assembly. It is an important matter that needs our attention and that of the Minister.
A recent small business survey found that there was 55% dissatisfaction with the availability of suitable labour, 39% with literacy, 38% with numeracy and 50% with the non-availability of relevant training courses. We need a strategic plan that takes account of the current labour force, looks at unemployment patterns and long-term unemployment and provides for future economic objectives.
The whole area is complex and not something that one would expect either the Minister of Health Social Services and Public Safety, or the Minister of Higher and Further Education Training and Employment, to address with immediacy, but it must be addressed in the longer term.
A recent CBI survey of May 2000 on human resources found that 23% of firms faced problems finding craft and skilled employees such as carpenters, mechanics and electricians. Higher electronics are the trendy skills — I think that the term is "sexy". However, carpenters, bricklayers, and electricians are also critical to the future development of the economy, and those skills require close attention. For example, a man in a small firm, working with perhaps two other employees, finds it difficult to take on an apprentice on a day-release basis. When a young fellow of 18 is taken on to serve his time as a carpenter, an electrician or a brickie, within 18 months he will be doing a tradesman’s job but not getting a tradesman’s wages. That is the economic situation. Therefore we need to look closely at the traditional skills of carpenters, bricklayers and electricians.
The survey also showed that 20% of firms find it difficult to recruit sales and marketing employees. That is another area that we need to address. Eighteen per cent reported problems with finding managers and senior administrative staff, with 16% unable to recruit IT staff. Those figures came from the CBI in 2000. It is fine to become fixated on information and communications technology (ICT), but we must pay attention to other areas of work as well.
Supermarkets employ young people who do not have any transferable skills or knowledge and are perhaps the lowest paid in the economy. We must address those problems too.
The situation in the Health Service is more complex. The commitment of staff in a massively underfunded health care system must be applauded, but auxiliaries and nurses are not paid enough. The lure of trendy jobs in the media or ICT is draining many further and higher education students away from medicine and nursing.
There is also the problem of the constant, negative reporting, fuelled by many Members. That does not make the Health Service an attractive workplace. It is kept functioning by the hard work and commitment of staff, and the simple truth is that the chronic underfunding and lack of clear planning and decisiveness by successive British Ministers have had a massive detrimental effect on it.
The latest figures show that between the trusts and the private sector there is a shortage of some 600 to 800 nurses. With regard to doctors, in 1998 Dr Brian Patterson reported that in 1993 there were 120 applicants to fill 45 vocational training posts, while in 1997 there were only 40 applicants for the same number of posts. That is an indication of the decline in the Health Service.
Mr O’Connor’s motion raised the problem of a skill shortage. We know that, with regard to nursing, it is critical. Nurses are being drafted in from the Far East to fill the vacancies in a country where nursing was once considered one of the prime vocations for young women and, increasingly, young men.
There is also the question of nursing degrees and the extra training required. Nursing has become more complex, and many health establishments are looking for young women and men with a nursing degree. Completing the four-year course can be difficult for young people, and the Minister should address that.
We have only one burns surgeon in this part of Ireland. Recently, we faced a crisis in that sector, because that man was about to leave. It is intolerable that we have only one person to look after a burns department, and that problem too must be addressed. We all know from our daily constituency work that there is a waiting time of up to six months for people wishing to see an occupational therapist. Old people are waiting for six months to get heating or treatment, because of the lack of occupational therapists. The shortage of medical laboratory staff and scientific officers, likewise due to the running down of the Health Service over the past 30 years, should also be addressed urgently.
There is evidence of massive skills shortages in the health sector. Perhaps it is unfair to lump it all on to the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, but I must raise the issue. The Minister should get together with the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety to address the issue of skills shortages. The Minister has attempted to address the issues, but I urge him to take more cognizance of the matters that have been raised this morning.

Dr Joe Hendron: I congratulate Mr O’Connor on bringing the motion before us today. We have a massive skills shortage, particularly in the Health Service, and Members will not be surprised if I confine my remarks to that.
The Health Service faces two major problems. The first is the gross underfunding of recent years. Indeed, the Prime Minister last July accepted that the percentage of gross domestic product spent on the Health Service in the UK is lower than that spent in most developed European countries. The second point — and it has been made by many Members and recently forcefully by Ken Maginnis — is that the Assembly and the Executive should look at the organisation of the Health Service. Plans are afoot for that, and the sooner the better. The whole system, Department, trusts and boards, must be examined.
Figures from the Department show that, last year, there was a shortage of 300 to 400 nurses in the trusts and a similar shortage in the independent sector. I did think that the figures would be even higher than that. Newly qualified nurses are offered attractive pay and benefits packages abroad. Can we blame them for taking up those offers?
However, some initiative has been taken. Nurses have been recruited from Australia and the Philippines, some of whom have been placed in the Royal Victoria Hospital and the Ulster Hospital. Many of these nurses are skilled — and that is what this is all about — but in one case a young cardiac surgery nurse from the United States did not know how to take a patient’s blood pressure when she was asked by a surgical registrar do so. That is not a criticism of the nurse, but her training was very narrow and confined to a particular area — that task had not been part of that training. Obviously, there is a problem.
In September 2000, the Department commissioned an additional 300 student nurse training places for the following three years. That was commendable, but we will need many more nurses. A few years ago there were seven nurse training schools in Northern Ireland which operated not just in the Royal Victoria Hospital but in other hospitals, including Belfast City Hospital and the Mater Hospital. Most of these schools have been done away with. Sometimes I long for the return of matron, who looked after the whole hospital. Complaints are made today about dirt and dust in hospitals. But I am straying from the substance of the motion, so I will return to main issue.
The universities have developed two return-to-nursing courses with the aim of encouraging former nurses, who left the profession to rear their families, back to nursing. The Department is to launch a major initiative to co-ordinate workforce planning and development across the various disciplines.
Each nurse possesses particular skills. For example, a nurse caring for the elderly requires skills that are vastly different from those needed by a nurse in an intensive care unit or a cardiac surgery unit. They are all specialists in their fields. Elderly patients must be cared for in the most appropriate environment. Following, for example, an acute chest infection or a stroke, many elderly people need a stage of recovery away from the frantic pace of an acute hospital ward. They need a system of care tailored to their needs. As a result, skilled nurses and other skilled staff are needed to look after them. The elderly require a mix of services, ranging from short-stay or long-stay rehabilitation to respite care.
There is also the question of orthopaedic nurses. Some months ago, a group of orthopaedic surgeons spoke to the Health Committee following the death of a patient who had been transferred from Craigavon Area Hospital to the Royal Victoria Hospital. The orthopaedic surgeons said that although there was a shortage of orthopaedic surgeons and operating theatre space, the greatest problem was a shortage of appropriately trained nurses, a problem in almost every department in the Health Service.
I referred to cardiac surgery when talking about the case of the American nurse. However, the nurses who work in that department are highly specialised. Mr Coulter recently proposed a motion on community nursing. That type of nursing is a skill in itself, and there is a messy shortage of staff there. We had a major debate on community nursing, so I will not repeat the points that I made then.
There is also a massive shortage of skilled doctors. Mr John Kelly spoke about Khalid Khan. I was directly involved in that matter, and, on the matter of skilled jobs, his case is relevant.
Dr Khalid Khan resigned from the post of locum heading the burns unit in the Royal. He headed the burns unit yet was only an locum, and he had been a locum for about two years. He applied for a job in England and was about to go there. It was not he who went to the media to get something done. It was the people in Omagh who suffered from the terrible ravages of the bomb there. Donna Marie McGullion and her father Malachy Keyes led the campaign and involved politicians. My colleague Joe Byrne took a lead in that, and Oliver Gibson was very supportive as well.
Political pressure was applied. The people concerned came to Stormont and met some of us. They also met the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Discussions were held with the Royal Victoria Hospital, with the deputy chief executive, Dr Ian Carson, and eventually with Dr Khan himself. The job was not only re-advertised, but the job description was rewritten. Dr Khan told me that his job had been to deal with the huge waiting list for treatment for burns and scalds. There is no way in which one man could do that, and Mr Khan has a wife and two children. An appointment is being made to a complementary post, but that was achieved by political pressure.

Mr John Kelly: I was not making a criticism of Dr Khan. My point was that we should not be dependent on one person to fill such a sensitive post. There really ought to be a number of people there. We cannot have a situation in which anaesthetists and heart surgeons can hold the rest of the Health Service to ransom. That is the fault of the training regime and the lack of skills rather than of an individual.

Dr Joe Hendron: I totally accept what Mr Kelly has said. I was not being critical of that point at all. Without political pressure, Dr Khan would still be there, trying in a lonely way to give support to the people of Omagh and treat the ravages of the bomb. That skills shortage also affected women with breast cancer who needed breast reconstruction. They too looked to Khalid Khan for help and were here at Stormont as well.
I just want to make one point about job skills in cardiac surgery. People are being sent to Britain and elsewhere for by-pass surgery, and I appreciate that there is a review of that. I also appreciate that the Minister of Higher and Further Education is not responsible at all for these matters. I want to put one question to him on that, however. It was well known for some months beforehand that a brilliant cardiac surgeon, MrHughO’Kane, was retiring, yet a review of cardiac surgery was being set up. As everybody knew that he was retiring long before, why was his job not advertised well in advance?
There is a big shortage in primary care and of general practitioners. However, as there is a paper on primary care in the pipeline, I will not go into that now. I have already made reference to the orthopaedic nurses, and there is of course a shortage of orthopaedic surgeons. Apparently some years ago one orthopaedic surgeon did the lot — every joint, bone, et cetera. Nowadays, however, it is argued that if you are an expert on the knee joint, for example, you are not an expert on the ankle joint.
I move on to occupational therapists — the young ladies who do a fantastic job across the North of Ireland. There is a massive shortage there as well, though there has been a slight increase in numbers in the last two years. Nevertheless, there is something very wrong when a woman or man of 75 or 80 years of age has to wait a year for somebody to make an assessment when maybe all that is needed is an extra banister on the stairs. I do not want to belittle occupational therapists, but there is something wrong with the system. However, that issue is being examined.
There has been a wide-ranging review of pathology, and some medical laboratory scientific officers have been at Stormont in the past 12months — young men and women who are highly qualified. Some Members, including myself, were recently invited to the Royal Victoria Hospital, where we met laboratory personnel from haematology and pathology. These people have honours degrees and tremendous expertise, yet they are being paid peanuts. There is something very wrong there.
Health visitors have special skills, but there is also a massive shortage in this area. The same goes for midwives and social workers — if we were to go into the question of social workers and the shortage there, where would we finish?
My final point is in connection with human resources management. I have already stated that the Executive and the Assembly will have to look at the Department, the boards and the trusts. In making an assessment of skills shortages, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety currently receives a central download from the human resources management system each trust and board headquarters and agency of health and personal social services.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Dr Hendron, I ask you to bring your remarks to a close.

Dr Joe Hendron: Quarterly, the director of information systems extracts data from each site, which is then amalgamated and sent electronically to the Department. Although the human resources management system has been developed, there has been little or no guidance from the Department about standardisation of codes, so an accurate assessment of shortages cannot be made.
I thank DannyO’Connor for moving the motion. I know that Members will give every support they can to the young men and women working in the Health Service.

Mr Donovan McClelland: A substantial number of people wish to speak. We need to leave time for MrO’Connor and the Minister to wind up, and I do not want to limit the debate. I ask Members to bear that in mind.

Ms Jane Morrice: I understand the position, and I will be brief.
There is a terrible irony in the skills shortages here. It is a matter of concern that they extend to many different sectors. Many efforts over many years have gone into securing jobs and inward investment — bums on seats, if you like. However, that is of no value at all if young people and the unemployed do not have the skills to enable them to do those jobs.
It is commendable that we have managed to cut unemployment by half in 15years. When I started work in the BBC business unit in 1987, unemployment was running at about 14% or 15%. Now it is down to 6%. That is excellent, but there is no doubt that there are skills shortages of considerable proportions, which can only get worse before they get better unless we move very fast. The reason we find ourselves in this situation is simple — a lack of strategic planning, a lack of vision. When we simply create jobs, the focus is on short-termism. Creating jobs is grand, but of little value if we do not have the skills to enable the posts to be filled.
I appreciate the point made by MrCarrick about the need to create jobs that are relevant to the workforce, and a workforce that is relevant to the jobs. Such a correlation between labour supply and labour demand is important to our economic future.
I am grateful to Members for raising the matter of education. That is hugely important — the 20% figure that we have been given of working adults who are unable to read the instructions on a medicine bottle is totally unacceptable and must be addressed. However, that is a responsibility of Departments other than the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment.
Focusing now on the Health Service, we are aware of the publicity surrounding the recruitment of Filipino nurses. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) is probably best placed to talk about a lack of skills. It said in its submission to the draft Programme for Government
"Despite 100 new training places for nurses created this year, and for the next three years, the RCN believes that this is still not sufficient to address the real and severe nurse shortages gripping the Northern Ireland Health Service."
It went on to say that 250 more training places for nurses need to be created each year to address those shortages, which the RCN said were caused by a reduction in such places throughout the 1990s.
I wish to draw Members’ attention, and possibly that of Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, to the fact that only 39 nurses — and DrHendron referred to this — completed the return to professional practice course last year. Is that because they received no remuneration, in spite of working around 100 hours per week? This is about the value we place on Health Service staff.
Attracting young women and, taking Mr O’Connor’s point, young men to the nursing profession is not just about training. It is about ensuring that we value, through pay and respect, the work they do. It is about giving nurses equity with other health professionals and, as the RCN rightly suggested, placing them at the core of improving the health of our people. It is important that that be the way forward.
The Khalid Khan case, which I mentioned, as did Mr J Kelly and Dr Hendron, exposes the skills shortage, the unavailability of highly skilled people like Dr Khan and the lack of equipment. This also concerns the burns unit — I am sure we are all glad that Dr Khan was able to stay.
Other professions have been mentioned — occupational therapists, medical laboratory staff, et cetera. I am disappointed that I have not heard of proper research in those areas. Dr Birnie mentioned the priority skills unit that is being set up. We welcome that important news, but it is vital that research begins soon so that we can know exactly what skills are missing to enable us to fill the gaps.
In conclusion, if we want to achieve greatness in the new Northern Ireland, we badly need to prove that we are worthy of it.

Mr Alan McFarland: There is a danger of the motion’s falling between two stools. I have particular remarks to make about the NHS, and I hope that the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will hear them. There is clearly a shortage of staff in the NHS. Medical staff are leaving, and there are chronic shortages in some disciplines. That leads to overwork and disillusionment for those remaining, and so the cycle begins again. There is uncertainty about the future of primary care and acute hospitals — both these issues are currently the subjects of studies — which has led to a loss of confidence. We need to sort out the NHS now. The system needs to be reorganised and settled down.
There is a shortage of nurses. Some are leaving, but, perhaps more seriously, fewer are joining. I was speaking recently to a former very senior nurse. She is retired, but she visits schools. She recently visited a sixth form to talk about nursing. Out of that entire sixth form only two students were interested, and she believes that only one of the two will actually go on to nurse. That is worrying. There seems to be a culture in Northern Ireland that regards nursing as no longer an attractive profession. Perhaps that is not surprising given the view that nurses are not paid enough.
The recent short-term solutions have been to import nurses from Australia and the Philippines and to encourage nurses back into the profession. I recently met a lady who trained in the Royal Victoria Hospital but spent her entire nursing life in America. She returned here to retire but was persuaded back into nursing. She is having an absolute ball, back at the Royal, having completed her retraining course. That solution can only be short-term.
I am concerned too that the Department may not know how many trained nurses there are here. Lots of ladies train but leave to have families. I wonder whether a record is kept of all trained nurses and doctors so that they can be contacted, given the shortage, to see if they are interested in returning.
I am also worried that the Department may not have a proper human resources department with the necessary expertise. Some of the shortages may be attributed to slightly daft reasons. Dr Hendron touched on the subject of occupational therapists. That is an interesting area. Some elderly people, or those who live on their own or in Housing Executive property, need handles to help them get up in the toilet or bathroom or move outside, and the only people qualified to decide where these handles should go are occupational therapists. The skilled tradesmen who fit these handles and rails — presumably they do such jobs and know where to put them — are not allowed to do this work for health and safety reasons. If someone fell, the tradesmen would end up in court. That is daft. Hundreds of people need such measures fitted, but there are insufficient occupational therapists to make the necessary visits. That leads to the perception of a chronic shortage of occupational therapists.
If someone were to come up with a design based, for example, on the height of the patient, that could determine the point above a bath at which a handle should be placed, thus enabling tradesmen to fit them, would there be this perception of an enormous shortage of occupational therapists? It seems crazy that no one can be bothered to find a solution to that. We prefer to disappoint and inconvenience hundreds of elderly people rather than try to find a practical solution to the problem. The Department needs a proper personnel branch to develop solutions for recruiting, training and retaining staff.
Finally, I will move to the general skills shortage. Businessmen tell of the abilities of potential staff and their enormous skills shortage — some cannot add and others cannot write for toffee. Universities say that they have to run courses for their first year students — to retrain them. Shorts has set up a department to deal with that. Clearly there is a problem with providing these necessary skills.
I ask the Minister to get together with his Colleagues in the Departments of Education and Enterprise, Trade and Investment to produce a common training system or curriculum that will give employers staff with the right skills to the right standard. Until we do that, we will have a skills shortage.
I support the motion.

Mrs Iris Robinson: The motion speaks of the skill shortage in the Health Service and calls on the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to take steps to address the problem. However, the skill shortage is due to other factors in the Health Service. I agree with Dr Birnie that the motion could have been broadened to include action that the Minister of Health needs to take urgently.
First, there is the contributing factor of getting enrolled nurses to become registered nurses. There are over 400 enrolled nurses here. If the majority were to become registered, it would make a big impact on the skills shortage. We need to find out why they do not want to do that and with what emoluments they can be encouraged. Is it the lack of reward, the undervaluing of the service or the cost of conversion courses? We must find out why we have so many enrolled nurses who remain so.
Secondly, there is another hidden factor — staff bullying by seniors. The money paid out to those who have taken claims against trusts is an indication of the number of skilled staff, including nurses, leaving the service. A recent meeting in Lisburn for staff being bullied in the Health Service attracted over 200 people. The situation is so bad that a support group has been set up. While we do not know the exact numbers that have left because of bullying, we will get a better indication when we know what money is being paid out— a factor that I am currently pursuing with the Minister of Health.
Thirdly, some 1,500 staff took early retirement in the last three years. Technically, each year 500 skilled staff take early retirement and are lost to the service. To cover for that loss and to make up the shortfall we would have to recruit twice that number. Failure to do so has worsened the situation. Perhaps the Health Service should operate the same policy as applies in education, where school governors only look at an application for early retirement if it will have no impact on the service given to pupils and if a suitable replacement can be found. Can this not be done in the Health Service?
A written answer on 7 December 2000 showed that more than 8,000 staff are on long-term sick leave. How many of these account for the skills shortage? I doubt if anyone knows. However, if that matter were tackled, it would reduce the numbers of skilled staff needed.
Finally, there is the bad decision making that demoralises staff, causing them to leave and go elsewhere. Take the decision to close the Jubilee and transfer maternity services to the Royal.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Is the closing of the Jubilee and the transfer to the Royal really relevant to this debate?

Mrs Iris Robinson: With the greatest of respect, it is. To date, some 40 staff have quit, which is very relevant, and time after time, services have had to close. Senior staff have even gone to other countries, taking a pay cut at the same time, because they have been so demoralised by the bad decisions continually being made.
That serious issue must be addressed if we are to retain the skilled staff that are so essential. It is evident to all that there are a number of problems in the Health Service, which, if tackled, would reduce the skill shortage and, thereby, the need for overseas recruitment.
I support the motion.

Mr Donovan McClelland: There are four more Members who have indicated a wish to speak. If those Members could limit themselves to five minutes each, we should be able to get through everyone.

Mr Mick Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion. It would be remiss of me not to say that it is unfortunate that the debate should be used to attack the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. That is what seems to be happening. Constant negative reporting, fuelled by many in the House, does not help to make the Health Service attractive to work in, yet it only functions because of the staff’s hard-working commitment. The truth is that chronic under-funding, a lack of planning and successive British absentee Ministers have had a detrimental effect on it.
I want to broaden the debate and concentrate on employment and skilled workers generally. I would like the Minister to ensure that business competition is not hobbled by a lack of people with the right skills. We have to reach out to the disaffected and socially disadvantaged and persuade them that learning is not a burden, and they must have the means to learn. We must build on what has succeeded in post-16 education and training and create a scheme that is even better. We must set up a learning and skills council as a non- departmental public body that will work with employers of all sizes to assess their current and future skills needs and fund effective training that is open to as many as possible. Small businesses especially need help with training. Many firms require a skilled workforce to enable them to move into new product areas and provide new opportunities.
The learning and skills council should seek to break down the barriers that have stopped people undertaking training that would put them on the right path to a job. Barriers exist for all kinds of reasons, including religious discrimination, age, disability and gender. The learning and skills council must ensure that it funds training to suit people’s needs. Colleges and training providers should find innovative ways of getting training to those who want it. Making a decision to update skills or change career should not mean that people have to disrupt the rest of their lives to get the right training.
The learning and skills council should take over from the training and enterprise councils and organise training locally. Council members should be drawn from local areas, and a percentage should be employers who are best placed to know what skills are and will be needed locally.
Councils should have about £100 million to spend on training, much of which would lead to qualifications, though some would not. Some training might help people keep up to date with changes in technology, while other training might assist those who missed out on formal education earlier in life and improve their chances in the job market. Other training would help people to make more of themselves and realise their potential as individuals.
The aim of the council should be to bring thousands of people back to learning. It should work over a large area by identifying colleges or training providers and encouraging them to work together instead of competing. That would make the most of public money and ensure that no effort was wasted.
Planning co-ordination should reduce the limited training provision caused by rapid technological change. It is unrealistic to continue investing in specialist equipment, such as printing, when an employer’s premises could be used as a centre of excellence to train trainers in the latest technologies. Councils can recognise local needs and provide specialist courses through in-house training.
The point of the learning and skills council is to bring more people into learning for longer and to raise standards. It would bring a new and sharper focus to the way training is funded, help build strong businesses and communities and assist individuals to play an active part in securing economic success.
Go raibh míle maith agat.

Mr Roy Beggs: I am pleased that Mr O’Connor has raised this important matter. I wish to concentrate on the shortages in the health and social services sector as they relate to experiences in my constituency.
First, there have been unduly long waiting lists for occupational therapy services. Assessments for some of my constituents have taken 12 to 18 months. I acknowledge that there has been some additional investment in occupational therapy, but there has also been additional responsibility — for example, for wheelchair assessment and allocation — which is absorbing some of that investment.
Occupational therapy assessment can affect the quality of life of the infirm, elderly and disabled. Many home improvements await assessments — whether it be for handrails, showers or heating upgrades. Those adaptations enable constituents to live longer in their homes and, thus, reduce the cost to the community care budget that would be incurred if they were to go into residential care.
My constituents have also made me aware of the pressures on specialist speech and language therapy in schools and the patchy provision of speech therapy for those seeking treatment. One constituent had his speech therapy interrupted for eight months because his therapist was ill and there was difficulty with recruiting a replacement. I quote from a letter that I received from a health trust:
"Our experience over the past year is that we have had to advertise posts a number of times before filling them and that the number of applicants applying for posts is very small. In some instances there are no applicants for posts."
I have raised that with the Minister responsible and understand that a review group was to report at the end of last year. I do not know whether the Professions Allied to Medicine (PAMs) group has yet met.
Finally, I turn to the shortages in the nursing profession — a number of Members have mentioned this — which are limiting the quality of health care that can be provided. In the early 1990s, we exported nurses. We trained many able students; we did not have sufficient vacancies; and nurses were forced to leave.
Nursing training was reduced from over 800 to about 400 — a huge drop. It was crazy to reduce the training so dramatically, and now we have shortages. During that period there have been technological changes that require more intensive nursing. Also, demographic changes have resulted in a more elderly population that requires additional community care services.
There seems to be a variety of estimates of the current number of nursing vacancies. In answer to a question that I asked last year, the Minister estimated 141 vacancies. The Assembly’s research department estimates that the trusts and boards have some 300 to 400 vacancies. In the independent sector there are a further 300 to 400 vacancies. There is a big question mark about the quality of information in the Department. I welcome the fact that 100 additional nurses are now to be trained each year, but there is considerable doubt about whether that will be enough.
I have one constituent who sought from an early age to become a nurse. Her qualifications would meet the requirements of the nursing boards in Scotland, but she was not successful in Northern Ireland. Higher qualifications are required here. We are now exporting students for training in other parts of the United Kingdom, when the demand is here. There is mismanagement in the Department.
12.00
In addition, in answer to a question the Minister said that 107 work permits have been issued here for nurses from outside the European Union. That mismanagement is a result of the existing structure. There is a central Department, but I do not know what it does. It does not deliver services. We need one authority to be responsible for training nurses with flexibility in its budget to enable it to deliver what is needed. Linking the delivery of services to a central health authority is part of the solution.

Mr Joe Byrne: I congratulate Mr O’Connor on tabling the motion. As the Chairperson of the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee said, an inquiry into skills training and needs in the public and private sector industries is ongoing. Ninety organisations have indicated that they want to make submissions. Sadly, however, only one private sector employer has agreed to submit material to the inquiry. The remainder are in the public sector. That is an indication of our enterprise deficit. However, the Committee is trying to get more private sector employers to give it their opinions.
The motion refers to the skills shortages in Northern Ireland in general and in the Health Service in particular. It is a result of the mismatch between supply and demand in the labour market, and that is a challenge for us all.There is a particular challenge with the long-term unemployed, central to whom are the 20% of people who lack basic numeracy and literacy skills. That must be tackled, and I hope that the Minister will be able to do something about it over the next two to three years.
People who live in large urban housing estates and have endured long-term unemployment do not have any hope. We must give them hope with skills training that will enable them to compete.
There is also the shortage of skilled personnel in the Health Service. I agree with Dr Hendron that, in the past, seven hospitals provided nursing training. I am not sure about the merits of centralising all such training in universities. I lectured in further education and saw many aspiring nurses do a pre-nursing course before their hospital training. University training may be desirable, though, for higher skills.
Mr McFarland said that a survey of sixth formers at a secondary school showed that only two people were interested in nursing. I agree. It is no longer the attractive option it once was, and it is more difficult to get into. Nowadays, one has to be a high-flying academic to get into nursing. However, nursing is mainly about caring. Very often people who study nursing do not need such high-level academic entry qualifications. Many students go on to do the Advanced GVNQ in health and social care, which is not the proper route for people who want to be nurses.

Mr John Kelly: I am sure the Member is not suggesting that nurses have lower academic qualifications than other professionals. Nursing is a critical area that touches on life or death.

Mr Donovan McClelland: May I remind Mr Byrne that if he gives way his time will be limited.

Mr Joe Byrne: Yes, but I was being sensitive to the Member’s interests. I do not think that my comments indicate that I am in favour of lesser qualifications for nurses. In the past when nurses were trained in hospitals more people wanted to enter the profession. Fewer people are now entering it, and there is a shortage of 800nurses here. As Mr Beggs said, we are importing trained nurses, while in the past we exported them.
Also, when we had matrons, there was a leadership role for nurses. Nurses feel demoralised. Ward managers are largely in charge of their responsibilities, and many of them find that difficult to cope with. That can be tackled if there is co-ordination between the Department of Health and the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, and I hope that that will happen.
Lastly, when the Committee concludes its inquiry we will have a clearer picture of the skills gap in general and, I hope, in the Health Service in particular.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I support the motion, but it is rather unfortunate that its wording seems to point the finger at the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. I am sure that was not intentional. Lest DrFarren think I have made a new year resolution to give him an easy ride, he need not panic. He will not get an easy ride. Both DrFarren and the Committee have taken this seriously and are doing an excellent job trying to rectify the imbalances in this area.
In spite of the disturbing fact that little research evidence supports the apparent shortage of staff and expertise in some hospital trusts, significant recent examples confirm that the standard of service being offered by the trusts is considerably burdened. We read horrific stories in newspapers, and constituents tell us about the difficulties that they encounter. It appears that meeting current needs from the indigenous market is no longer an option. Instead of recruiting from inside Northern Ireland, which has an unacceptable level of unemployment — trusts, as Dr Hendron said, have had to travel.
I felt as if I was back in church on Sunday morning, because every time my clergyman says "And finally," I know that he will go on for another 45minutes. DrHendron said that a few times this morning, and I was panicking lest none of us would get a chance to speak.
However, I agree with what he said about bringing nurses from the Philippines and Australia to remedy our shortages. Although there is no research to prove it, evidence suggests that there are not even enough agency nurses. Can the Minister of Health explain why research into skills shortages here is so inadequate? Establishing the extent of her Department’s need would be a useful first step towards dealing with the dire situation. How does she intend to address the surprising lack of research?
The problem is not restricted to nursing. Leading practitioners and medical laboratory staff are also in the spotlight over their frustration with a system that has consistently underfunded acute medical needs. Members will recall our debate a few months ago on laboratory technicians. They feel under pressure, and their needs are not being adequately met. Indeed, the difficulty is less the responsibility of Dr Farren than of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, who seems to be less than eager to put it right. There is a logjam, and the Health Minister needs to acknowledge her responsibility to sort the situation out. Can she assure the House that she has done more than simply adopt the policies of her predecessors? What significant steps has she taken to answer the complaints of patients, practitioners and nursing and technical medical staff about the chronic underfunding?

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is not here, because the debate is a matter for the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. Should the Member be able to attack the Health Minister so vociferously? She is not present to defend herself in a debate, which, ostensibly, does not concern her Department.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. I accept Mr J Kelly’s point. Several Members have strayed from the subject of the debate, and it is inappropriate to direct questions to a Minister who is not in the Chamber.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The motion specifically mentions health and social services.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I take the Member’s point, but given the time limits, we should allow Mr R Hutchinson to continue.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: I am delighted to have stirred up such debate. We have a sophisticated society, but how confident can patients be in a Health Service that is struggling to meet its needs, particularly its staffing needs? One is often left feeling that Minister de Brún’s Health Service is in urgent need of a radical cure.

Dr Sean Farren: I welcome the debate, and I have listened to all the contributions with considerable interest. It is important that Members reflect concern about matters such as the skills needs of our economy.
Most Members who dealt with the part of the motion that refers to the Health Service accept that those matters do not lie within my sphere of responsibility. I am sure that my Colleague the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety will take note of the comments made in respect of her responsibilities and respond to Members accordingly.
There is, of course, a degree of overlap on a small number of Health Service related issues. In our universities and, to some extent, in our colleges of further and higher education provision is made for the professional needs of the Health Service. Members need to appreciate that the provision of places on such courses is, by and large, a matter for negotiation between the institutions concerned, the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the trusts and the health boards.
Therefore it is only in a limited way that I have even indirect responsibility. It is up to the universities and the colleges, in the context of those negotiations, to determine the level of provision that is made for places on their degree and other courses. I respond to the debate from the more general perspective that is suggested in the opening part of the motion.
I was particularly pleased to note the comments of the Chairperson of the Committee who reminded Members that the Committee is now engaged in an extensive study of the skills needs of our economy. Obviously, from the range of responses received and from some of the submissions already made, there is great interest in the Committee’s work. I look forward to its report.
I want to make some general points which are pertinent to addressing the skills needs of our economy. My first point, to which some Members have referred, is that we are operating in a labour market that is much more positive and challenging than it was a decade ago, or perhaps even five years ago. With unemployment at the low level of approximately 6%, and employment at a record high, we have a tighter labour market. Certain skills are in high demand, and pressures, of a kind not previously experienced, are being felt across a number of sectors.
Members will appreciate — and this has also been referred to — that people who were trained here in various occupations have left Northern Ireland. That has had consequences for the Health Service, and we are attempting to attract specialists from overseas, from very distant lands, to make up the deficits.
Our labour market is not isolated, and our situation is very open. There is considerable mobility in the Health Service and the construction industry, with whose representatives I have been in regular contact over recent months. They point to the highly attractive rates of remuneration and job opportunities available south of the border, factors that are drawing many away who have skills that are needed by the construction industry. We are working hard to make up the deficits thereby created.
We also see these problems in the information and communications technology area and others. These pressures are not simply a result of our economic successes in recent years. Pressures are also from without — whether south of the border, across the Irish Sea, or globally. Members will appreciate that the information and communications technology sector is operating in a labour market which, globally, is experiencing considerable skills shortages. We therefore need to undertake more detailed planning to enable us meet the skills needs of our economy and ensure that all its sectors are provided with sufficient workers with the highest possible level of technical and professional skills.
Some Members suggested that there is an absence of strategic planning. That is far from the truth. A considerable degree of strategic planning is constantly under way in my Department, and that is reflected in the Programme for Government, as those who have read and studied it know.
We have a well-endowed education and training infrastructure to meet the challenges, which many Members frequently acknowledge. A report published last month by the Northern Ireland Economic Council, written by Prof Michael Best, a world-renowned researcher and commentator on economic planning from the University of Massachusetts, states
"Northern Ireland’s educational system offers a basis for competitive advantage with considerable potential. Few regions in the world of the size of Northern Ireland have the range of university level disciplines in engineering and science-related areas, particularly in information technology."
Elsewhere in his report, Prof Best refers to the size of the information technology programmes at the University of Ulster and Queen’s University as being "particularly impressive". He describes them as
"a magnet for information technology companies given the global shortage of skills in this area. The opportunities for industrial policy are considerable."
Later in his report, Prof Best points to the considerable potential of our further education colleges to help to meet the skills needs of our economy.
Members will appreciate that the professor’s report is not simply a list of compliments. He makes criticisms but also recommends plans to meet our skills needs. I agree with some of his criticisms, some of which have been voiced here this morning. However, action is being taken in response to almost all of the points, and I remind Members of some of the initiatives that are underway.
We are not yet achieving 100% success, but any objective assessment would conclude that we are making considerable headway in the drive to meet our skill needs. The major focus of my Department, since its establishment, has been on avoiding skills shortages. I have taken steps to ensure that the vocational education and training system is focussed on and addresses industry’s needs.
These measures include placing greater emphasis on researching the labour market. One Member said that there is no evidence of any such research, but a considerable amount has been completed, and reported on, in recent years. I invite Members who may not be familiar with my Department’s annual bulletin to examine its wide- ranging set of research reports on many aspects of our labour market. That negatives any suggestion that there is an absence of detailed research into the labour market here.
I have increased the number of places in higher and further education, particularly in vocational areas of employment growth. The number of modern apprenticeships, for example, now stands at more than 3,000, and it is increasing. Many of these include apprenticeships for the construction industry. The areas in the higher and further education sectors, such as information and communications technologies, electronic and software engineering, manufacturing engineering, tourism and catering are all receiving particular attention to the extent that the number of places available to students has increased significantly. In my recent proposals for new forms of financial support for students, I have identified key areas requiring special attention. My objective is to give those from low income and disadvantaged backgrounds access to further and higher education.
Increasing access to education and training for all through New Deal programmes, the bridge-to- employment initiatives, the promotion of individual learning accounts and the opening of a considerable number of "learndirect" centres across Northern Ireland is further evidence that the strategy to meet skills needs is being implemented. Indeed, most Members are now familiar with the phrase "life-long learning", which encapsulates many of those initiatives. Only yesterday, I attended an event organised by the Educational Guidance Service for Adults to publicise adult learners’ week, which, although not its only initiative, will devote particular attention to the basic skills needs of many adults.
I sympathise with the remarks made about that problem by many Members. It causes me a great deal of concern. The programme will receive all the resources that we can make available. The Chairperson of the Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee and other Members reflected a degree of concern over the budgetary allocations required to deal with that. I am working hard to ensure that additional allocations will be made available from the Executive programme funds.
The strategic report detailing how we should address the need for basic skills, literacy and numeracy was published shortly before Christmas by the basic skills unit. It is a detailed report, and I trust that the resources needed to implement its recommendations will be made available. Members may recall that the "Back to Your Future" campaign was launched recently in conjunction with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to attract highly skilled and experienced people back to Northern Ireland. Companies have been pleased with the numbers who have logged on to the web site.
Members might be interested to know that there have been over 2,000 hits on the web site. Sixteen companies advertised job vacancies, and in a short time 150 applications were attracted. A considerable degree of satisfaction is being expressed. It is a small initiative, designed to attract people from Northern Ireland currently working abroad to return and make their future here.
Other initiatives either directly or indirectly involving my Department address skills needs. One of those is the interdepartmental working group on employability. A Member referred to the needs of those who leave school with minimal qualifications, who are at the margins, as it were, of society and at risk from whatever appeal there is in crime, drugs and so on. Reports on their condition and circumstances are among the reasons for that committee’s establishment. In that context, we will address the barriers experienced to becoming employed and engaging in training programmes. We hope, as a result, to be much more effective in directing our training resources.
I wish to draw Members’ attention to another initiative that is more directly the responsibility of the Minister of Education, though my Department is represented. A committee, chaired by Prof Sean Fulton, has been set up to look at careers guidance. Mr O’Connor and others referred to the urgent need for effective careers information and guidance in schools and further education establishments to give young people the best possible information, guidance and direction on the opportunities available.
Specific points were raised that I want to address. Reference was made to the report from the Federation of Small Businesses, which has just come to my desk. That identified a number of skills needs and deficits. The small business sector is probably under a lot of pressure as a result of expansion in some of our major enterprises, and its needs should be addressed in particular. I draw Members’ attention to the fact that, with the University for Industry’s support for adult training, small business and its training needs are receiving help from the courses being set up by the learn direct centres across Northern Ireland. Members can play an important role by encouraging more adults to take out individual learning accounts, which will enable them to avail of the training and education opportunities.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Minister, I remind you of the time constraint.

Dr Sean Farren: I am about to draw my remarks to a close.
I could refer to other initiatives, but those that I have mentioned should show Members that there is a multifaceted strategy because the issues to be addressed are wide-ranging and multifaceted. There is no single answer to the skills needs of our economy. A range of initiatives is being taken, many in a way that indicates the growing partnership between employers, trade unions and the training and educational institutions. We should pay tribute to all those involved in the Departments, the agencies and the institutions. We may not have got it all right, but we are clearly determined that we will get it right.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I accept that the wording of my motion means that it may fall between two stools. I had no intention of criticising Dr Farren or Ms de Brún. I merely wanted to open up debate on the subject as a result of needs identified by MrR Hutchinson and Mr Beggs, who have received the same types of complaint as I have about one-year-long waiting lists for occupational therapy and children waiting 18months for treatment for dyspraxia, which is not considered a priority. We talk about adult learning, but we cannot address the basic learning needs of young people because of the lack of facilities.
The motion might have been worded more clearly, but it was worded in response to constituency needs. I had spoken to various health trusts and was advised that while funds were available, trained people were not. I tabled the motion as a result of that information.
A much wider picture has emerged, however, given that various Members, starting with DrBirnie, have referred to adult education. Mr Carrick elaborated on the point, stating that 20% of people starting on Jobskills, about 1,800 people, lack basic numeracy and literacy skills. We must address that. We have a multifaceted approach, strategic thinking and planning, but we still have unemployed people. We are bringing in people to do jobs that unemployed people here have not been trained to do. That may be an oversimplification of the problem because we do accept movement in the labour market. As Dr Hendron said, nurses come here from the Philippines while, as MrBeggs said, people leave our shores to go to Scotland to nurse.
A hard core of unemployed people must be affected by our actions if we are to target social need. As the Minister acknowledged, young people are those most likely to be influenced by crime or drugs, and I am glad that he is aware of that.
Mr Carrick also touched on the export of skills. We do not want to create a brain drain; we want people to stay and help us become more prosperous. We do not want our best people to go somewhere else. That is why it is important to focus on training for the jobs that are here and need to be safeguarded. In an ideal world, everybody would like everyone to be working and earning £1,000 a week, but then we would have to bring in people from other countries to do some of the more labour-intensive tasks.
Ms Morrice mentioned a lack of vision, saying that in the past there was job creation without thought of sustainability. There were quick fixes by previous Ministers who threw a few jobs at a sector, thinking that if it were to collapse in a couple of years, no real harm would be done because a new Government would be in place and it would be somebody else’s problem. We want to create a sustainable economy here that can develop and make people much more prosperous.
Mr John Kelly said that 55% of small businesses are unhappy with the availability of skilled labour, such as bricklayers, joiners, carpenters, plumbers and so on. These people are important. If we are going to have a factory that employs 200 people in the IT industry, we need people to build the factory in the first place. People seem to be obsessed with IT, thinking that everything is going to be about computers, but factories and houses will always have to be built.
People can earn big money by going to Dublin or elsewhere, so we have to ensure that we create the type of economy in which they can earn that sort of money here.
Mr McFarland mentioned alternative solutions. He suggested that time could be managed better by the simple implementation of certain aides-mémoires to people carrying out occupational therapy work. The purpose of the debate was to try to throw out a lot of new ideas and to ensure that people could listen to what others were saying and get some degree of focus on what is needed.
Mrs Robinson spoke about staff bullying. It is horrific that so many people attended a meeting on that. I have heard of people being bullied at work, but I did not realise that it was happening on such a horrendous scale. If we have 500 early retirements in addition to normal age retirements each year, there is clearly a great need to recruit, not just to tread water but to remedy the deficits that Mr J Kelly and Mr M Murphy mentioned and which we saw so much of in the past.
Mr Murphy also made an important point about identifying and targeting local training needs. The training for people in Fermanagh might be geared towards hospitality, whereas in east or north Antrim it might be geared towards hospitality and tourism, and in other areas to construction or IT.
That is an important point. We want to achieve local input, and local democracy is supposed to do that, yet Mr Beggs highlighted the 107 work permits that were granted to nurses from countries outside the EU, including the Philippines.
According to weekend television reports, hospital trusts in the United Kingdom have been bringing in nurses from Africa who carry the HIV virus. There are potential dangers in bringing in staff from Third-World countries. I do not wish to appear xenophobic, but we need to examine how our staff are trained.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Will you bring your remarks to a close.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I am almost finished.
Dr Hendron spoke about nurses and mentioned Dr Khan, whose case has been well rehearsed.
Dr Byrne touched on one of the most relevant issues, which is the need to give hope to those who do not seem to have any optimism and who lack basic literacy and numeracy skills. He also mentioned training schools for nurses, which, in the past, were part of hospitals rather than universities. In the past, there were state enrolled nurses (SEN) and state registered nurses (SRN) — this seemed to work well. But now we have a shortage of nurses. There is no reason for SRNs not going to university or for SENs not taking part in nurse training programmes.
I welcome the Minister’s announcement of special attention for adult learners and additional money from the Executive programme funds to address some of the problems mentioned this morning.
I thank Members for their attentiveness and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your patience with me.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to take immediate steps to address the problem of skill shortage in Northern Ireland, particularly in the field of health and social services.
The sitting was suspended at 12.47 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair) —

Mr Martin McGuinness: A Cheann Comhairle, should we send a search party for the Member who is to move the motion?

Sir John Gorman: I do apologise.

Mr Martin McGuinness: It is not exactly the Rottweiler snapping at the heels of the Minister. Silence is golden. I am worried about Mr Wilson.

Mrs Eileen Bell: There is no show without Punch.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I am very concerned about him.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I rushed back here.

Mr Barry McElduff: I know. I did not want to miss anything either. It is most unusual.

Mr Martin McGuinness: We need ten for a quorum.

Mr John Tierney: Mr Deputy Speaker, what is the procedure now?

Sir John Gorman: This is highly discourteous. It is the first time in the two years of the Assembly’s life that this has happened. Since Mr Wilson, who is to move the motion, is not here, I will suspend the sitting.
The sitting was suspended at 2.05 pm and resumed at 2.18 pm (Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Sir John Gorman: I am sorry for the delay. If I had called the motion in the absence of the Member who is to move it, it would have fallen at once, and that would have meant the cancellation of all this afternoon’s business.

Mr Conor Murphy: On a point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Mr S Wilson has treated the House with contempt by not being here at the appointed time. The Business Committee allocated two hours for the debate to be followed by a debate on the homeless, which has also been allocated two hours, and the Adjournment. Can you rule on whether Mr Wilson’s motion, given that he did not have the decency to be here to move it when he should have been, will get the full two hours? Will the other debates go ahead as scheduled on the timetable?

Sir John Gorman: I have a great deal of sympathy for your point, MrMurphy. I hope the debate can be concluded at the scheduled time. I will decide if I can extend it closer to the time.

Mr John Kelly: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In doing that, are we setting a precedent for further occurrences like this when a Member is late? Are we to have a laissez-faire attitude to those who do not turn up on time to move motions in their name? Are we setting a precedent?

Mr Peter Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Was the precedent not set when a Sinn Féin/IRA Minister did not bother to come to the Assembly in time? These people did not get up to whinge then.

Sir John Gorman: Surely we would all like to proceed with the business. The decision on whether a precedent is being set can await further study by the relevant Committee.

Mr John Tierney: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The business was suspended on the day mentioned by Mr P Robinson. The SDLP would favour suspending the business completely on this occasion given what has happened. You say that we can go ahead because the business was not called earlier. I am tempted to propose that business be suspended, albeit that I have not heard the reason for the delay. If the reason is good enough, I will be prepared to accept it. I know that, on returning, we were in favour of suspension. However, I am prepared to wait and hear the reason or excuse for the delay.

Sir John Gorman: I will now make the resumed sitting legal by asking the Clerk to read the motion.

Mr John Kelly: On a further point of order, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I ask again if we are setting a precedent.

Sir John Gorman: The answer is no.

Schools: Capital Spending

Mr Sammy Wilson: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls upon the Minister of Education to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the capital spending budget between the various school systems in Northern Ireland.
First, Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you and to the House for not being present at the appointed time to move the motion. I accept that it was my responsibility to be here then. Unfortunately, because of engagements in another capacity and traffic delays, which I had not anticipated, I arrived here three or four minutes late. I do not blame any particular Minister for that. I did not come by public transport. Nevertheless, the state of the roads and the traffic congestion in Belfast are such that the House needs to address the problem, and I hope that it will do so.
I can understand why Sinn Féin, one of whose Ministers had the misfortune of not turning up here on time for a debate, would wish to have the issue pushed aside. The reason I asked for —

Sir John Gorman: The motion has been called. You are the proposer, and you have not yet referred to it. Will you kindly get on with the debate.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Had I not apologised I would have been accused of treating the House with contempt. I wanted to spend a moment or two doing that.
The motion is timely because the Minister of Education will, in the next three or four weeks, be making an announcement on capital spending for schools. It will be his second opportunity to allocate substantial sums of money — £72 million last year and £93 million in this year’s budget for capital spending. In certain parties of the Assembly, and outside among the general public, there was great disquiet last year when the schools capital programme was announced. Comments were made in the House. The Minister had been informed by members of the Education Committee that they expected fairness, and after the announcement, and especially in the sector of the school system that caters for the Protestant section of the population, there was great anger at the blatant and raw sectarian way in which the Minister had allocated his spending.
Of course, it was presented with all the spin that one expects in modern politics. The Minister talked about the great boost from the largest ever amount of money for the capital building programme, across all sectors, primary, secondary, grammar, special, integrated, and to all the different education providers.
Then one looked at the £72 million and at how it was to be allocated to the different sectors. Even at an initial glance, the figures gave cause for concern: £27·7 million of the £72 million was for the controlled sector, the sector that caters mostly for the Protestant population. For the sector that caters mostly for the Roman Catholic population, there was £40·3 million— an imbalance of 55% to 38%.
That was bad enough. However, when one took away the Minister’s flannel and fancy accounting footwork, there was the startling picture of an imbalance of three to one against the sector that caters for the Protestant population: the Minister included in his announcement £6·7 million for Regent House Grammar School in Newtownards in spite of the fact that on 11 May 1998 the then Education Minister, Mr Worthington, had already announced that £6·7 million would be spent on Regent House. So, to pad the figures out, the Minister announced something again that had been said more than a year before.
If that was not enough, we then had the matter of Antrim Grammar School— oddly enough, this was the only such instance of this — where £7·7 million was to be spent. But one had to read the small print of the Minister’s statement to find that he never intended to spend that money. The project was to be started when money became available, and it was not anticipated that it would become available in the financial year for which the announcement was made, and, indeed, it did not. When that total of £14·4 million was deducted, the amount of money left for the education sector that caters for the Protestant population was only £13·3 million. The ratio was three to one.
Of course, it could be argued — and this would have been a reasonable defence — that the spending was meant to reflect not the balance of pupils but the projects that had been suggested or the state of the schools in each sector. No one would have found that unfair. I do not care if money is spent on a school that caters mainly for Catholics or on one that caters mainly for Protestants if it can be justified by the fact that one sector is well provided for and the state of its school buildings is fine while pupils in the other sector are being taught in sub-standard conditions. No one would object to that.
However, when one looks at the figures upon which the Minister based his decision — the new starts which it was possible to announce — one sees no such imbalance. Over the six years for which I could obtain figures, the number of schools that required money spent on them, whether they catered mainly for Catholics or mainly for Protestants, was roughly even. There may have been a slight difference in favour of schools catering mainly for Catholics, but it was only one or two percentage points. Therefore it cannot be argued that this was based on the state of buildings in the various sectors.
I will not dig up the Minister’s past record because time is short — which is partly my fault. However, we have a Minister who has been on record at least five times discussing the discrimination against Nationalists and Republicans which he believes occurred in the past. I believe that there is only one interpretation possible from the figures available on the one capital-spending decision that he has made. Whatever perceptions and grievances he and his party hold, he is abusing his position as Minister. He is taking money which should be allocated fairly and skewing it towards one side of the community, and no amount of fancy financial rope-trickery will hide that blatant imbalance.
One of the reasons for moving the motion before any decision is made is to enable me to use the Assembly to put down a marker for the Minister that this must not continue. With the Education Committee, Mr Kennedy and others, I have listened to pleas from schools in the maintained, controlled, voluntary, special and integrated sectors that people are being educated in poor conditions right across the board — no sector has a monopoly. The Minister must not be allowed to spend public money, allocated in good faith by the Assembly, in a way that is biased towards one sector. The facts are here, and no doubt the Minister will treat them in a cavalier manner, as he has in the past. Facts do not seem important to him, but the Assembly cannot ignore them, and it is important that the marker be set.
I could refer to individual schools, but I do not want to do so. The Education Committee has been careful not to lobby on behalf of individual schools, and we have told representatives, who have presented their cases to us, that we want to get a general picture of the state of school buildings. I am not lobbying on behalf of schools in my constituency — this is not a plea on their part. I am, however, saying that money should be allocated fairly.
The budget for the Department of Education should not be used in a cavalier manner by a Minister with a narrow, political, sectarian agenda. The confines of the debate do not allow me to refer to other ways in which preference has been shown to those who fit into the Minister’s agenda. The figures speak for themselves. They are on public record and available in the Library and in Education Committee papers.
It is an important matter. We need more capital spending to improve the stock of schools, and many of us who have heard reports on and seen pictures of some of the buildings in which children are being educated have been appalled. Extensive capital spending on schools is needed, but it must be done in an equitable manner and not to redress imbalances that the Minister perceives to exist. He even believes his propaganda that only one section of the population suffers from disadvantage.
We are aware of how unaccountable Ministers can be, taking decisions that are at odds with the Committees appointed to scrutinise them and at odds with the view of the majority of Members.The imbalance in capital spending this year may be exactly the same. Given his record, that is likely to be so. But let the Assembly say on that matter of concern that it expects the Minister to live up to his pledge to deal with these issues fairly. Many would disregard the word of the Minister because he has broken it on so many occasions, but we should at least hold him accountable.

Sir John Gorman: In view of the importance of the subject, I will allow the debate to continue for two hours, in spite of the small problem at the beginning. The Minister will have 20 minutes for his winding-up speech, and Mr Wilson will have 10 minutes for his. Other Members who wish to speak will have eight minutes.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity for this important debate and accept Mr Wilson’s contrite apology.
I will address the Assembly as Chairperson of the Education Committee and as the Ulster Unionist spokesperson on education. I will attempt to keep within the time constraints.
The Education Committee is concerned about the condition of the school estate. The Committee has received from parents’ action groups, teachers, principals and student bodies numerous representations on the dreadful condition of many schools in the primary and non-primary sectors. The problems that we face concern outdated and inappropriate accommodation that does not meet modern educational needs and a lack of space. A large number of school buildings are crumbling. They have rotting window frames, inadequate fire exits and fire door protection and electrical faults. These are health and safety matters that illustrate the urgent need for a substantial increase in the funds for major capital projects.
A recent Department of Education general inspection report indicated that in one primary school deficiencies in school buildings are having a serious detrimental effect on children’s learning. Almost every Member will have seen the appalling conditions that exist. Such conditions are bound to have an effect on student and teacher morale and, therefore, a serious impact on education itself. The Education Committee finds the situation unacceptable and would like it to be addressed immediately.
Over the years, capital projects have been seriously neglected and underfunded, and urgent action needs to be taken. The Committee believes that investment in the capital building programme must be a high priority for the Executive and the Assembly. It would eliminate the major deficiencies and help to provide a modern and appropriate learning environment for children in the twenty-first century here.
The Education Committee will be meeting the Minister and his officials next week to review the capital programme for the incoming year. Undoubtedly, a number of high priority cases will be competing for places and, with limited resources available, hard decisions will have to be made.
It is imperative that equality and fairness be evident in the allocations that we make. To assist the process the Education Committee believes that the criteria used in making capital spending decisions should be widely known and understood and that they should be clear, open and transparent.
The Committee received a range of views from education boards officials during its investigations. However, it is not totally clear on the method used for the final allocation of capital building money. A comprehensive and cohesive strategy is needed to address the appalling situation.
As the Ulster Unionist spokesperson on education I want to express profound concern at the apparent imbalance in capital funding allocated to the controlled school sector in recent years. An analysis of the last five years highlights a marked disparity between the controlled and maintained sectors. That is totally unacceptable and must be addressed.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is here today. His recent announcement on Strabane seems to pre-empt the review of the transfer procedure and the capital building programme. Apparently an announcement affecting education in Strabane has been made but has not yet been funded. When a Minister tells the people of Strabane, or anywhere else, that they are to get a new school that will involve capital expenditure, the money should be available for that. It seems improper for the Minister to have made that announcement short of consultation with the area boards and the Education Committee. I hope that he will address that when he speaks later.
There is an urgent need for capital funding in all sectors. Consideration must be given in each to the allocation of funding on an equitable basis. Given the Minister’s political background, it is incumbent upon him to ensure that the controlled sector does not perceive itself to be undervalued or underfunded.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: A number of issues to do with the allocation of capital funding need to be addressed, one of which is the categorising of schools that apply for capital funding. Schools are put into three categories, and those in category one receive priority. However, the majority of schools are in category two.
One of the criteria used by the Department when deciding which schools get capital funding concerns matters such as mobile classrooms. The Minister may give priority to schools whose classrooms have been destroyed or damaged by vandalism or whatever. As SammyWilson said, many of us can pick out schools in our constituencies that should get priority, but some schools were vandalised 25 years ago, and it has not been possible to use that accommodation since. Such schools have been housed in mobile classrooms for 25 years. Why were they not prioritised? Why did they have to wait until last year to get capital funding?
Some children are being educated in schools that are over 130 years old. Are those schools not priority cases? We talk about best practice and value for money, but these cannot be achieved with heating or maintenance in a building that is over 130 years old.
We need to ensure that social disadvantage is addressed and that targeting social need resources are directed towards schools most in need of capital. Unlike other Members, I regard it as well known that conditions in a large number of Catholic schools have been allowed to deteriorate dreadfully, with a high dependence on temporary mobile classrooms. Clearly, there needs to be equity in the system.
In the interests of the equity that has been talked about today, we cannot just advocate a 50:50 split for funding. We need a proportionate allocation that reflects the state of schools, the health and safety of children and social disadvantage. We need an open and transparent system to assess educational needs and target genuine need. I ask the Minister if his Department has adequately assessed need and the schools estate. Does his Department have a benchmark for capital expenditure? How effective is the private finance initiative? Does it deliver what it is meant to and give value for money?
As I have said often, there is not enough funding, particularly for children with special needs. With the development of the local management of schools, specialised posts have disappeared, and special needs are being dealt with in the classrooms. Funding is only available for statemented children.
How much reasonable adjustment has been made in the Budget to increase accessibility? If mobile classrooms are in use in a school, are they accessible to children with disabilities? I am not just talking about access through the front door of a school, but about access to all of a building and its facilities.
There is a great need for strategic planning with all partners in education, because many of them are practitioners in the field. Who is better placed to give an opinion? There also needs to be an acceleration of the process of agreeing options, schedules of accommodation and economic appraisals.
Finally, I mention the Government’s policy on rural proofing. I hope that the Minister can assure us that he will use that policy when he is making his final decisions. It is the responsibility of everyone in the Chamber to strive for an equitable education system that is accessible to every child.
I support the motion.

Mr Barry McElduff: Cuirim fáilte roimh an rún seo, agus de réir mo bharúla is ábhar fíorthábhach é ar fad. Ba mhaith liom rud amháin a chur san áireamh, agus is é an fhírinne nach raibh rudaí cothrom sa tsochaí ó thaobh cúrsaí oideachais de. Is é mo bharúil go dtosaíonn an turas chun na cothromaíochta sa lá inniu.
I welcome the motion. It helps the Assembly to concentrate on the important matter of the Education Department’s school building programme. Let us face it: many of our schools have serious accommodation problems. There is a great need across all sectors. No sector is excluded. A major commitment and investment are required to improve the overall condition of the schools by replacing sub-standard accommodation. It is needed where classrooms are undersized and overcrowded; where they are old and poorly maintained; where serious physical and structural deficiencies are posing health and safety risks; where inadequate physical education is provided; and where the very delivery of the school curriculum is inhibited, or narrowed, because children are not being taught in a safe, warm, dry and stimulating environment. If we are going to do a good job here, we should act in the interests of all our schoolchildren. That should concern us more than anything with respect to education.
On first reading the motion, one could be forgiven for believing that Mr Wilson has seen the light and is espousing the equality agenda, the removal of sectarian discrimination and the redressing of the historic funding imbalances and differentials that have disadvantaged particular education sectors. For example, the Catholic maintained sector, which was deemed to be underfunded by £200 million in 1983, did not receive 100% funding until 1993 — a mere eight years ago.
On first reading, I thought we were going to hear some enlightened commitment to the principles of equality from that most unusual of sources, Mr Sammy Wilson. However, it appears that my hopes were ill-founded. Mr Wilson evidently has different ideas. He has set out to take the debate out of context and wilfully ignore the experience of Catholics in education since partition and the inception of the six-county state. It happened in jobs and housing, and it happened in education as well.
Our experience has been one of systematic structural discrimination, and there is much work to be done to create a level playing field, redress the balance and bring about equality for every citizen in the Six Counties and their children. Because I, with some foundation, doubted Mr Wilson’s intentions, I attempted to table an amendment before 9.30 am in the form of an addendum. It came as some surprise to me that the Business Committee, or the Speaker, disallowed my amendment, despite my meeting the clear deadline for tabling amendments of one hour before the start of business. It is a matter of some regret. My amendment would simply have added the following words:
"This should be based on educational need and taking account of the historical differential in capital funding between the maintained and controlled sectors."
It is important to get the historic perspective right to inform ourselves of the present and to acknowledge that there is an historical legacy. There is a much greater backlog in the Catholic maintained sector, which is playing catch-up, than in some other sectors. All of that was dealt with in the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights (SACHR) report compiled by Prof Tony Gallagher in the 1980s, which led to the journey to equality in that respect. Catholic parishioners were long forced to pay for their children’s educational facilities while other sectors enjoyed 100% funding all along. That is why many of our schools do not have the elaborate playing fields that other schools enjoy.
The journey to equality does not begin today on a blank sheet —

Mr Sammy Wilson: Will the Member give way?

Mr Barry McElduff: No.
Things were not equal in the past, and that must be addressed. I support the calls for funding to be allocated on the basis of educational need, using a clear, open and transparent method and adhering absolutely to objective criteria. It is understandable that individual schools feel disappointed when they are not accepted on the programme. We also need to appreciate that various schemes are at various stages of design and planning. How many schemes are ready to go? That is a relevant question.
We can all quote figures. In the last five or six years Michael Ancram, I think, spent £23 million in one year on the school building programme. Three or four years later Mr McGuinness spent £72 million. It is reasonable to anticipate that the Minister will act in a fair manner with respect to this.
In conclusion A LeasCheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom rud éigin a rá faoi Phádraig Mac Piarais. One of the leading educationalists of last century was Pádraig Pearse. In 1905 he said
"Take up the Irish question whatever way you want and you end up at the question of education."
Go raibh maith agat.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I support the motion in principle. All Members should take upon themselves a personal duty to ensure a fair distribution of the capital spending budget between the various school systems. I support that. However, as other Members have said, there will always be concerns, disappointments and sometimes even relief when the annual announcement of the education capital building programme is made. It is right that we should monitor such announcements closely and watch where allocations are made.
We would all like to see local schools being given the necessary resources to improve or replace their buildings. In my constituency of North Down I have, with colleagues past and present, been engaged in a campaign that has lasted more than 20 years to have Glenlola Collegiate school estate improved. I was delighted and relieved when moneys were allocated to that last year.
We also have in the area Clifton Special School, which originally opened its doors to 55 severely mentally and physically handicapped pupils. Now, more than 20 years later, around 120 children are being educated in rooms and facilities that would be considered totally unacceptable in any other school, never mind in a school that is specifically for the severely handicapped. Pupils and staff put up with inconveniences daily, but still the school boasts a fine record. The Minister visited that school last October. He was shocked at what he saw, but he was also impressed by how well the staff and pupils cope. I would like that project, which, as I said, has been promised for many years, to have been part of last year’s programme. However, I am hopeful that it will be in the 2001 programme.
As others have said, the procedures for inclusion in the capital building programme are long and complicated, but each sector and geographical area must be considered before final decisions are made. The timetable for all major capital schemes is protracted and will always involve consultation at various levels to ensure equity. Economic appraisals, development proposals and tender procedures all take time. Work by the Department on each project is intensive and has as its basic principle — and this is written in every board memorandum — that school needs must be met insofar as is possible.
I make these comments to show that it is possible to ensure at all stages that a fair capital spending programme can be drawn up by all involved. The allocation of new starts 2000-01 is as follows: maintained schools get 32·2% of the total, which is just over £23 million; voluntary schools 27%, or £19·4 million; controlled schools — which Mr S Wilson is quite rightly worried about — 35%, or £25·3 million; integrated schools 2%, or £1·4 million; and special schools 3·8%, or £2·8 million.
If we are talking about equity, we need to look carefully at integrated, special and Irish-medium schools. Integrated education, people will argue, is a small part of the education sector. I wonder why. If all education were integrated, we would not be worrying today about sectarian headcounts.
Last year’s allocation was the largest we have had, and I hope tthat that will be a permanent feature of local administration. I am sure the Education Committee will do its best to ensure that distribution of resources is fair.
Obviously, parents have the right to choose the schools to which their children go. We must consider that when looking at the distribution of capital funding as well as at the condition of the buildings.
There must be a review of the process and of the timetable in particular. Can we do anything to ensure that it is expedited in some way to prevent waits of 20 years or more? Any new procedures ought to ensure that the terms of the motion are honoured. The Education Committee will play its part in that. Members must ensure that distribution is fair and free from sectarianism.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I declare an interest. In my capacity as a Belfast city councillor, I am a member of the Belfast Education and Library Board (BELB) and have been part of decisions made on capital spending.
I am somewhat surprised by the debate. I assumed that Members would take up sectarian positions. There is always an argument between Sinn Fein and the SDLP about who the real Republicans are and who the real Nationalists are. I was surprised to see that Sinn Fein deliberately missed out the private finance initiative. That party claims to be socialist, so PFI should be the first thing on its agenda. However, there is no mention of it, even though it is a major part of the capital spending plan.
The Minister must adhere to certain criteria. Mr Danny Kennedy said in a recent article in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’ that he could not make a statement and then ignore what he had said. However, if I, as a member of the BELB, thought that the Minister had ignored criteria that would have put one of our schools to the top, there would be an argument with the Department of Education about that. In the Minister’s defence — people may wonder why I would defend him — the criteria have been well scrutinised. There are many sectors in the Department of Education, and we may need to look at that.
This is not about sectarian politics; it is about educational need. It does not matter whether a child is Chinese, Protestant or Catholic. All are entitled to an education. Mr Kennedy raised a valid point. SDLP Members talk about attacks on Catholic schools; Protestant schools have been attacked as well. Irrespective of whether a school is in need of repair or replacement, there is a morale problem among the teachers and pupils in such a school. That is a big problem. We must spend money to ensure that teachers do not work and children are not taught in such impossible conditions. We must ensure that educational need is met, and the criteria will help us to do that. The criteria should not be concerned with whether a school is Protestant, Catholic or integrated; they should be concerned only with the educational needs of children and how they can help their teachers to perform.
Mr Wilson’s motion is rather paradoxical. We all agree with what he is saying, but we all know that the system cannot, in one sense, be "equitable". If there are five Catholic schools that need attention before Protestant schools, or vice versa, that is the need that should be dealt with.
We cannot say "We should take a Protestant school today and then a Catholic school" and leave four other schools that may be in more need of attention, so there is a bit of a paradox. At the same time I sympathise with Sammy Wilson’s motion. How do we get this right? How do we ensure that someone does not run with his or her agenda? There are mechanisms in place to prevent that. The boards, while they continue — and how long they continue is an argument for another day when we may have more money — should scrutinise what happens, and we need to look at that too.
A number of points have been made, but the important one is that we act according to educational need, and I am not sure that we can ever get the Protestant/Catholic balance right.
People need to wake up to PFI. Private finance can be attracted to the Malone Road or Bangor, but attracting it to the Shankill or the Falls or any other working-class area is almost impossible.

Ms Jane Morrice: I want to focus on an area that has not been mentioned enough in the debate, and that is integrated education. My Colleagues Eileen Bell, Billy Hutchinson and others did refer to it, and that is vital. This is about using increased money to satisfy parental demand. There has been talk about parents sending children to schools of their choice. Parents who want their children to go to integrated schools do not always have that choice, because there are not enough integrated schools in Northern Ireland to give it to them. Applications for places often have to be turned down.
That sector needs support. It is often said that the integrated sector is perceived as getting more than traditional sectors, a myth that I want to explode at the outset. MrMcElduff mentioned catching up. If we are talking about catching up, we are talking integrated education. That is what the integrated schools are doing — playing catch-up. We have only to compare the statistics for the various schools systems over the last 50 years — not the last 10 years or the last five years, but the last 50 years. Remember that the first integrated school, Lagan College, was set up less than 20 years ago, in 1981. There is a desperate need for vastly increased funding for the integrated sector in order to ensure what Mr Wilson describes as "a fair and equitable distribution of the capital spending budget".
Another myth that I want to dispel is the claim that the integrated sector gets more than its fair share of the cake. We have 45 integrated schools. Thirty-one were set up from scratch by parents. When the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 came in, giving equity to integrated education, 10 integrated schools already existed. Two of those, Windmill Primary School, set up in 1988, and Omagh Primary School, in 1990, have had only mobile classrooms since their inception.
I will not go into detail on this, because my Colleagues have covered it. We should focus on the need to educate Catholic and Protestant children together, which is stressed in the Good Friday Agreement and is hugely important for mutual respect and understanding. Children go to separate schools at the age of four and do not meet a child of another religion until they start work or third-level education.
I want to underline the need for integrated teacher training, the only area of third-level education that is segregated. We must move away from the past, with the old headcounts of Catholics and Protestants, and into a new future in which children of all religions learn to respect each other.
The position of the Women’s Coalition is that capital spending must take account of targeting social need and the historical imbalance due to the non-funding of sectors such as integrated education. We also have reservations about any major new capital expenditure, in any sector, before the review of post-primary education is complete.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: There is much sub-standard accommodation in the schools estate that affects Protestants and Catholics, and any plea for a fair distribution of resources will be taken seriously by everyone.
MrWilson spoke of the seriousness of the matter. It reminded me of the situation a few years ago. For many years, as everyone knows, Catholic schools had to put up 35% funding, then 15%. Eventually, the last Tory Education Minister gave Catholic schools 100% funding. There was one dissenting voice on that move: that of MrSammy Wilson, the proposer of today’s motion. I am glad that he now takes a wider view. For the sake of improving all our schools, that wider view is needed.
Children are being educated in schools that resemble nineteenth-century institutions. Our priority must be to put an end to that situation; that would be to be really fair. If there are five such schools in the controlled sector and one in the maintained sector, or vice versa, we should tackle the problems in all six right away. Then we can have a serious debate about the equitable distribution of funding.
Like Mr Wilson, the Chairperson of the Education Committee referred to apparent unfairness. I shall listen to what is said. However, I have not heard any outcry from the education and library boards, who are responsible for prioritising capital projects in the controlled sector, about unfairness in the system. Perhaps, others have heard it. If so, we should listen to what they say and tackle the problem.
The PFI was rightly raised. It is not just the Department of Education; other Departments seem to be all for it. There is a great buzz about PFI. We are following other countries, not least England, but England is now pulling back from PFI arrangements because serious questions have arisen. Our Department of Education has not had a wide enough, or serious enough, debate about the implications for schools. They talk about entering into 25-year arrangements with private developers who will provide premises and collect rent. However, we have to look at the situation at year 15 and year 20.
Has the Department put controls in place that will ensure that, at the end of the agreement period, buildings will be in good condition and will have been value for money? It is all very well to tackle the problem in that way, but many working in education are not convinced that we have looked seriously enough at it. Many are worried about the advantages that appear to lie with the private developers under PFI. Developers will be able to choose the best projects. What will be left over? How will small schools, which have many of the most serious problems with accommodation, fare under PFI? We have had no debate on that, and I ask the Minister to note these concerns.
We have already seen ripples around the development of PFI initiatives in Northern Ireland. They are a knock-on from problems that have surfaced in England where developers have had very imaginative ideas for developing property in close proximity to schools. This is not about filling stations — most pupils do not have cars — it is about developers providing attractions which will persuade children to part with some of their money, perhaps even their lunch money. This is an important issue.
I hope that PFI will help to alleviate the problem, but I hope that we take on board the cautionary notes coming from elsewhere and do not store up problems for ourselves further down the road.

Mr Edwin Poots: I intend to speak for people who do not seem to have much of a voice nowadays — namely, the low-to-middle income families in the Province.
We hear a lot about targeting social need and those on the lowest incomes. Many resources have been geared towards helping such people. However, there is another group of people who are employed on low incomes. One partner may have a part-time job. They may own a house, but it may be cheaper to own than to rent a house. It may be cheaper to buy a mid-terrace or small semi-detached house. They may own a car, but it may be five or six years old and not worth very much.
If such people live in a rural community, they do not have public transport. They are often forgotten about because they do not fit into a particular set of criteria — the targeting social need criteria. Their children can go to school and be educated, occasionally in conditions little better than a dump. I hesitate to use the word, but on some occasions they are little better than a dump.
In my area there is a triangle that consists of mostly privately owned houses. Nevertheless, many of the people living there could not be classified as wealthy. In that area, in Moira, the school is full. The area has a good new school, and that is fine.
In Maghaberry, they have a school that was built for 100 children but cannot take any more as 215 children are presently enrolled. Last year 46 children applied to enter P1, but only 30 could be accepted. There is planning permission for 300 new houses to be built, yet children have to go to schools outside the area. In Hillsborough, the school is full. It has 14 classes and only four permanent classrooms.
If every boy were to use the outside toilet during break, each would have just 15 seconds. That is happening in the leafy, affluent Hillsborough area. While many of the parents of these children may be affluent, others are not. Nevertheless, they are all entitled to be educated in good conditions.
The area between is also important. Children are being taken from the area in which they live and to other areas because there are not enough schools there. There has been a proposal to amalgamate three schools in the west Hillsborough area — the Maze Primary School, St James’s Primary School and St John’s Primary School. In addition, Hillsborough Primary School needs 21-classroom accommodation, while Maghaberry Primary School needs at least three additional classrooms, although there is an apparent need for it to become a 14-classroom school. The Maze Primary School was built in 1870. Only one of the school’s classrooms is not undersized, and storage space is at such a premium that they have to use the toilets. There is no vehicular access to the school, and parents have to park on the road when leaving children off. One child was knocked down last year.
There is a similar situation at St James’s Primary School — children are being taught in composite classes. Again, the toilets are located outside, and classrooms are undersized. In addition, the damp-proofing course has not been successful, so you can smell damp, which is also evident in the finish of the wall. St John’s Primary School, which was built in 1853, also has temporary accommodation. One part of the school is in such disrepair that it can be only used for storage, and there are also outside toilets. There are no physical education facilities in any of these schools,and pupils have to travel to council facilities in buses because of that.
There is a growing population in those areas, and the need for proper educational resources must be addressed. I get a little weary of hearing about the problems of inner-city areas. There are great problems there, but there are also major problems in rural areas that I want to highlight because children are being educated in substandard conditions. They do not live in a TSN area, but why should they be deprived of decent educational resources because their parents do not fit into the TSN category?

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh mait agat. The motion is, in some ways, welcome. It is aimed at a difficult question which we must address from two directions. It is positive in that the proponent is engaging with the Minister and asking him to ensure that there is equitable distribution of the budget and capital spending.
The motion gives us a welcome opportunity to discuss linked issues, which are all important — some more so than others. The Minister will ensure that fairness in capital spending. An objective of my party and, I am sure, of the Minister is to strive towards equality, especially in the education system. One of our themes is the need to cherish all our children equally. The end goal is to achieve an equal society, and that was made possible by the Good Friday Agreement.
Young people must be made part of that process. They must have access to skills training, which will allow them to gain proper, adequately-paid jobs rather than the low-paid work which many had to put up with in the past. They must feel included in society. Fair employment is needed on all levels. Young people must feel that education will lead to their being treated equitably when it is finished.
Personal development is an area that will probably need more spending in the years ahead. Education will also face changes, and preparing people through peace and reconciliation to deal with each other will put demands on the budget. These factors have a direct impact on capital spending.
As my Colleague Mr McElduff and others have said, a rebalancing of the past is an important theme that pervades the entire process. The education debate, and specifically capital spending from the point of view of Mr Sammy Wilson, must be decided in the context of how educational needs were dealt with in the past. The educational achievements of Nationalists over the last 30 years and before were nothing short of phenomenal, given the obstacles to education that were for so long put in their paths. Over the past 80 years in particular, the regime here was anything but forward-looking from the point of view of trying to prepare everybody, on a equal basis, for the future. In that time of one-party rule, underfunding was practised to establish control. Those mindsets from history may still exist now.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Does the Member not accept that the 1944 Butler Education Act, which was extended to Northern Ireland by the Stormont Parliament, enabled all classes of people here to get a higher standard of education? The crucial factor in education throughout that period was the insistence of the Roman Catholic Church on total responsibility for the education of its children — an insistence that remains in spite of the fact that its schools now receive 100% funding. Does the Member accept that contention?

Mr Gerry McHugh: While that was indeed enacted the fact that it was certainly not endorsed or fully implemented by the Government of the time had an effect, on the end result, which amounted to more of the same. Things changed because of pressures from society. It was more that than anything else that brought any change in how education was funded or the Government were forced to direct their funds. We faced a system in which there was gerrymandering and a skewing of resources to a large degree to one side of the community at all levels by the Government. A lack of jobs and proper housing, discrimination and injustice had an effect on the education system and on how people viewed it.
Integrated and Irish-medium systems of education were ignored, and that imbalance must be redressed. That is why Irish-medium education was mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement and why funding has to go towards it. An earlier contributor made the argument for integrated education.
The capital allowed for by the present budget is insufficient, given the backdrop that I have described. The Blair Government, who purport to back education so much, have not been prepared to back the post-conflict situation and put schools here on a par with those in Britain.
There are serious accommodation problems in many schools that need to be addressed. Continually bad conditions in schools adversely affect the morale of teachers and pupils, who are trying to achieve high standards. They do not have the right tools, and this serious situation must be resolved.
PFIs must be discussed by the Education Committee and the Assembly. People are concerned that they seem to be being almost pushed down our throats as the only way of delivering a capital programmes for schools. We must have control and ensure that we do not lose it or long- fought-for assets.
The delivery of the programme is important. What we do now will have a major impact on our children’s futures, and everything must be done to meet everyone’s needs on an equal basis. Past difficulties have to be redressed, but we must also work towards the competitive market and educate our students to face the world and all its problems.

Mr Martin McGuinness: A LeasCheann Comhairle. I was pleased —

Sir John Gorman: I am so sorry. I overlooked the fact that there was one more Member who wished to speak.

Mr Oliver Gibson: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought I had escaped - [Laughter].
When listening to MsMorrice I remembered attending a national school on a first floor. The principal and his family lived on the ground floor. That could have been called a high school or college of technology. Older generations in rural areas attended mixed schools, and my father would declare that mixed schools were great because you learned exactly what the opposition was like from childhood.
First, I would like to deal with Catholic underfunding. When representatives from the integrated sector came to lobby the Committee they produced a document that referred to BishopBoyle of 1830. When I pointed out that he had been an Establishment placement, they were shocked. I reminded them of Cardinal Connell who declared 150years ago that there should be Catholic education in Catholic schools by Catholic teachers. In 1922, Lord Londonderry wrote to Cardinal O’Donnell on education. The cardinal replied: "Dear Sir, We have our own education system." People say that they want their own ethos — and they are entitled to that — but they want someone else to pay for it.
Because of the poor quality of education that was being delivered, the Northern Ireland Government, in spite of constant barraging, felt compelled to move from 65% grant aid up to almost 100% grant aid. The Council for Catholic Maintained Schools has raised the standard of Catholic education and is to be congratulated. The funding figures that are available for the past five years do prove a glaring point. In 1995-96, of a total of £60·5million, £7·7million went to the controlled sector. In 1996-97, of a total of £47·2million, the controlled sector received £16·9million.
In the year that was mentioned, 1997-98, the sum was as low as £23 million, of which £4·9million went to the controlled sector. Three years ago, in 1998-99, it received £3·8million out of £32million. The final sum announced in 1999-2000 by Tony Worthington was £67million, of which the controlled sector got £16·7million. When Mr McElduff from my constituency hailed the announcement of £72million this time last year as a great success, I examined the figures and found that £14·4million of that figure had already been announced by Worthington, reducing the figure to £57million — more than £10million less than was announced by Worthington. Someone should get the right, or we shall be writing "Learn to count" on the bottom of that report. These facts explain the skewing of the figures.
My stance is not anti-Catholic nor anti-Catholic school. Rather, the skewing of figures against the majority sector has been so great recently that the Unionist community feels that it does not count. It feels that there has been an attack on its ethos. Unionist people consider education a treasured asset and feel that their very being is under attack, and not just because of 30years of physical violence and the blowing up and destruction of their property. They perceive this to be the case, particularly given last year’s announcements and the perception continues to be perpetuated: out of the supposed £72million, which is not an accurate figure, the controlled schools received less than £25million. Everything was going to be transparent and open with the new beginning. It is so visible that even the stupidest person can see that that was not so much phoney accountancy as "ropy adding", as Sammy Wilson called it.
One of the other areas I mentioned was the clamour by the mediocre. Everyone wants the best education he can get. We know that there is a difficulty over the amount of money, but I would like to have heard of something being done to redress the backlog worth at least £1billion. At least £500million is needed for new building and £500million for urgent repairs. If we agree that that must be dealt with, let us look at the American system, which is not always good, not always great. We are talking about provision, and surely public and private partnerships could give us some help here.
Irrespective of the fears expressed by Mr BHutchinson and others, I dearly want private finance initiatives in rural areas because I speak, as MrPoots has spoken, for rural schools. I speak for schools all over west Tyrone, which are small and old and where all pupils use outside toilets that would horrify the urbanites. That is a fact of life in rural areas. I would like to see us, with public- private partnership, being able to cluster schools into a contractual package that could lead to the provision we need.
I fear you will remind me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that my eight minutes are up. I can make my other points quickly. There is a perception in my community that must be dealt with. The people whom I represent feel that there is such a skewing away from the controlled sector that they are being ignored and their voice counts for nothing. I want that noted this afternoon.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas Cheann Comhairle. I am glad that the debate has taken place. It was in doubt earlier. Many people will remember MrS Wilson saying some time ago that he intended to be like a Rottweiler at the heel of the Minister. The Rottweiler was 15 minutes late. I thought I would have to send out a search party for him and had visions of him coming up the steps on all fours, with his tongue hanging out. However, his speech turned out to be more of a yelp than an attack.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to both the motion and the points raised. I also welcome the opportunity to put it on record that fairness and equity are key principles in my approach to education issues. I can confirm that the capital budget of the Department of Education is not determined on a religious or sectoral basis. Resources are directed to priority educational need, in whatever sector.
The largest part of the capital budget is directed to major capital work across all sectors, but substantial funds enable education and library boards to undertake minor capital work in controlled schools. Funds are available to meet boards’ responsibilities for furnishing and equipping controlled and maintained schools, school transport and accommodation. My Department also grant-aids approved expenditure on minor capital work in voluntary and grant-maintained integrated schools.
As I have said before, I am committed to improving the schools estate, but the number of major projects competing for a place in the capital programme far exceeds my available resources. Each year’s school building programme is directed towards new schools, rationalisation, the replacement of substandard accommodation and ensuring that pupils and teachers have a proper learning environment. The available resources are directed to the highest priorities, based on educational need. It is important for people to understand that.
I also wish to comment on statements about imbalances in how capital funds are allocated. I refute any suggestion of inequality in those allocations, which are based solely on educational need. In any one year the allocation may favour one sector or another. However, Members should note that since 1990-91 the capital programme has been spread over 50 controlled schools, 43 maintained schools, 18 voluntary grammar schools, three Irish-medium schools and six integrated schools.
Contrary to popular belief, no decisions have yet been taken on next year’s capital programme. I will be meeting the Education Committee next week, and I hope to announce the programme once I have heard and considered its views. The criteria for determining the programme will include educational priority, planning readiness, estimated costs, affordability and, not least, the capital resources available. The key factor is educational need, which is informed from a number of sources, principal of which is the capital planning list, which contains over 100 projects in categories one to three.
The criteria for each are clear. Category one provides for additional schools on identified sites or extensions to existing schools where there is clear evidence of insufficient places to accommodate pupils at suitable schools in a defined area. Category two provides for rationalisation proposals, which replace substandard accommodation and are essential to effect the rationalisation. Category three provides for schools that suffer significantly as a result of several serious accommodation inadequacies.
Projects in category one, which are sufficiently advanced in planning, have first priority for available resources, followed by projects in categories two and three. There are 108 projects in categories one to three on the planning list, representing 57 primary and post-primary schools in the voluntary sector — Catholic maintained, voluntary grammar and Irish-medium. There are 36 primary and post-primary projects in the controlled sector, representing 11 special and four grant-maintained integrated schools.
In drawing up the initial planning list, my Department consults with the education and library boards, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education and individual school authorities. The Department subsequently consults the boards and the council representing the majority of schools on the planning list about their capital priorities. I consider that to be an important step since both have a specific statutory responsibility in their respective sectors.
Within the Department, advice is also sought from the education and training inspectorate and the Department’s professional advisers about the relative educational needs of the competing priorities. Projects competing for a place on the conventional procurement programme must also be sufficiently advanced in design planning to be considered for a place on the programme.
The availability of resources is obviously the determining factor in the number that can be included in any year’s programme. However, the present backlog of school building projects, which currently amounts to some £500 million, cannot be addressed by conventional procurement methods alone.
I am looking at the possibility of addressing some of that backlog through the private finance initiative. I understand the concerns and the reservations that people have expressed about that. To go down that route would obviously mean the conventional school building programme being complemented by the selective use of PFI in appropriate cases, to permit greater progress in meeting accommodation needs across the schools estate than would otherwise be the case. I hope that that information gives Members a better understanding of the allocation of my Department’s capital budget and the difficulties that it faces in trying to meet the needs of all schools.
I cannot deal with all points raised but I will deal with one or two. Mr Wilson mentioned Regent House. The original announcement was made under the Chancellor’s announcement, which assumed income from the sale of land — Scrabo High School and Belfast port. Neither of those transactions took place so no income was received, and money had to be found from elsewhere in the budget.
With regard to the point raised by Mr Kennedy on the situation at Strabane, I will clarify the position and, I hope, clear up the misunderstanding and confusion, which prompted an article in the ‘Belfast Telegraph’. My decision to approve the development proposal for the amalgamation of Convent Grammar School, Our Lady of Mercy High School and St Colman’s High School to form a new school was taken under the statutory provisions of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. A development proposal must be published where a new school is to be established or where significant changes are proposed to existing schools. It gives interested parties an opportunity to voice any objections before a decision on the proposal is reached. Far from undermining the mechanism in place, I was fulfilling my statutory responsibilities in that case.
The development proposal for the amalgamation of the three schools should not be confused with the Department’s capital programme, which I announce annually. Only after a development proposal is approved and an economic appraisal undertaken can a building project can be considered under the capital programme. So, if the development proposal had not been approved, or if its approval had been delayed, the project could not have been considered for the capital programme and would have come to a standstill. The Strabane project will be considered alongside other priorities for a place in the capital programme, in the light of the resources available. However, no decisions have been taken about the make-up of the next capital programme. People will have to await the outcome of all of that.
Mr Kennedy made an important point. For many decades we have had neglect and underfunding in education. We can see that in the state of the schools estate. It is difficult to deal with all these matters against the background of the heavy backlog of work that needs to be done.
Ms Lewsley referred to PFI, TSN and social deprivation. The Department assesses all these matters and the state of the schools estate, and I hope that my statement to the House has cleared up the Department’s and my approach to all this. There are too many mobile classrooms, but these are all a result of the nderfunding and neglect that we have had for many years.
The Department has been involved in pathfinder projects, but PFI is at a fledgling stage. We have attempted to use our limited resources in the best way possible. My officials are tough negotiators, and under no circumstances will they use public money on schemes that will make fat cats fatter.
An example of that is the collapse of the recent Classroom 2000 negotiations where, clearly, we decided that the deal on offer was unacceptable. Some hard and tough negotiations took place during the course of that. Our people stood their ground, and in the end we did not go for the proposed deal.
With regard to rural schools, I agree with Ms Lewsley about the importance of ensuring that they are treated with equality and fairness.
Mrs Bell raised Clifton Special School, and there are other special schools. That is something close to my heart. I have visited that school and a number of others, and I am very much taken by the need to support the teachers, parents and pupils. Ultimately, judgement will be made on the Assembly and the Executive, and we will be judged on how we treat the most disadvantaged people. I am conscious of my responsibilities with regard to those very special children.
People know where I stand on integrated education. I have a duty and responsibility as Minister to encourage and facilitate parents who choose integrated education for their children, and I intend to support those people the whole way down the line. Ms Morrice reiterated the point about integrated education. It is vital that my Department co-operates with NICIE to ensure that we deal with the demand of parents. Certainly when people come forward with robust proposals, we will support them. A good example of that recently is our lowering of the viability criteria, which makes it possible for such schools to start up more easily. We are making progress on that.
Mr Gallagher made an important point when he said that there are no criticisms coming from the education and library boards. That needs to be taken on board by people who come to the House and make totally erroneous claims about unfairness or injustice with the distribution of capital resources.
There was a great contrast between Mr Sammy Wilson’s speech, which was completely over the top, totally wrong and unjustified, and that made by Mr Edwin Poots, which was positive and constructive. It contained no hint whatsoever of criticism of any bias against one section of the community or the other. He dealt with the important issue of rural schools and said that there are people who feel that officials in the Department are anxious to deal with their concerns — whatever they may be.
Mr Poots mentioned three schools in the Hillsborough area that date back to the mid-1800s — Maze Primary School, St James’s Primary School and St John’s Primary School. Yesterday afternoon I met with a cross-party delegation of Members from that area to discuss the proposed amalgamation of the three schools. They will have high priority in the next capital programme. Mr Poots’s speech was constructive, and that is the way forward, folks. The best way for DUP Members to represent their constituents’ concerns, or perceived concerns, is to talk to me about them.
Under no circumstances will I preside over a Department that attempts to treat any child unjustly, be he from the Shankill Road, Portadown, Hillsborough, Coalisland, Maghera or Derry city. That is the past. I want to move on in a new spirit of friendship with everybody, including Sammy Wilson and the DUP, and try to build the new future that the vast majority of children and parents crave. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Mr Deputy Speaker, the Minister and his party said that they that welcomed the debate, yet at the start they protested and hoped that you would rule it out of order because of my late arrival. That probably said more about their real intentions than their words did. Of course, Sinn Féin is good with words. I was almost in tears during the final, impassioned plea from the Minister: "Please come and talk to me. I want to be your friend." His party cannot be friends with people from his own community. It goes around bashing them every night, yet he entreats us and says that he wants to be our friend.
I heard what he said about fairness and treating people with justice. We hear that from Sinn Féin on everything. It says that it wants the guns out of politics, yet holds onto its arms caches for dear life. It says that it wants justice, yet bashes people in Nationalist areas every night. We hear the weasel words "We want the funds distributed fairly", but do not judge it by its words; judge it by its actions.
The Minister, despite attempts to do so at the end of his speech, was not able to deny that he padded last year’s figures to disguise the fact that one education sector was treated three times better than another sector. That sector just happens to be the one used by the community that I represent.
While the Minister tried to keep up the impression of wanting to be fair, he could not convey that message to the lieutenants sitting behind him. Barry McElduff and Gerry McHugh talked about the injustices of the past. Note the words: "The difficulties of the past have to be redressed." The implication is that spending allocations must be skewed towards one sector, and justification for that is spurious.
Oliver Gibson gave the figures for the last five years. There is no historical imbalance. The non-100% capital funding in the past is not unique. Republicans feel they must whinge about discrimination — it is almost obligatory. The voluntary sector chose to be independent and paid the same penalty. It did not get 100% funding. The big, bad Unionists did not discriminate against poor, downtrodden Nationalists. There was a price for independence, and it was paid by all sectors that chose that route. So let us dispense with the nonsense that is trotted out ad nauseam by people who ignore the historical facts.
On PFI the Minister and his lieutenants have not got their stories straight again. I sometimes wonder just where the lieutenants operate. Gerry McHugh was concerned because Billy Hutchinson taunted him about his socialist credentials. Mr McHugh said that Sinn Féin was concerned about PFI and that we need to debate the matter. Clearly he did not realise that that is actually what we are talking about — perhaps we should have used Irish. I do not know.
We did discuss PFI in the Committee. We had a presentation with plenty of documentation from officials. Furthermore, we responded to the Minister on PFI. I did not notice any dissent from Sinn Féin — its members agreed that PFI should be used in certain circumstances. Now Gerry McHugh is wringing his hands and saying that we need a debate on that because Billy Hutchinson taunted him.
If there is a £500 million backlog, we must look at innovative ways of dealing with it. PFI may not suit certain areas, but it does suit other areas. It is important that we do not rely simply on public funding to deal with that, and the Department is right to look at the possibility of using private finance to help.
I had no doubt that Eileen Bell, a zealot on this, and Jane Morrice would use the debate to promote integrated education saying that as people are queuing up to get into such schools we should spend money on them. By that definition, we should be throwing money at nearly every grammar school because people are queuing to get into them, and hundreds of children are being turned away every year. We should certainly not be spending money on integrated schools when there is under-capacity in the existing system, whether in maintained or controlled schools. It is madness to spend money on an alternative system when plenty of places are available in state or maintained schools.
I accused the Minister of fancy financial rope tricks, and it seems once again that he is trying to mislead or direct attention away from the imbalance. He talked about the number of controlled schools that had benefited from spending on capital projects. He is correct inasmuch as last year more controlled schools than maintained schools benefited from capital expenditure. However, when two controlled schools are given £700,000, two are given £1·2 million and another is given £1·3 million, you can make the figures tell whatever story you wish.
Eleven schools in the sector that caters for Protestants benefited from capital spending compared with six schools in the sector that caters for Catholics. However, £13·3 million was spent on the former while £40·3 million was spent on the latter. The Minister can use whatever fancy footwork he wants to, but there was an imbalance.
Tommy Gallagher said that we must look at the state of school buildings. I am happy to do that. Figures for schemes that were introduced and are now in contention were made available to Tommy Gallagher and me. For the last six years there was not much difference between the two sectors, but there are massive differences with capital spending. I am happy for the issue to be judged on that basis.
The problem exists because we have a Minister who reflects the views of the lieutenants who sit behind him. He wants to redress the perceived problems of the past, and that is why there is an imbalance in his spending. That is why the Assembly should be demanding fairness and equity.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls upon the Minister of Education to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of the capital spending budget between the various school systems in Northern Ireland.

Student Debt

Mr John Kelly: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to address urgently the critical state of student debt.
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I assure the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment that I did not table the motion to wind him up, as someone has suggested to me. I feel strongly, as I am sure the Minister does, about this, and I congratulate him on his recent efforts to meet with those who are at the cutting edge of the hardship being caused.
Students ought to be the beneficiaries of our education system and not victims of it. Unfortunately, the present system of a debt-burdened educational process is making victims of our student body. Education is as much a part of our infrastructure as roads, rail, transport, housing and the other physical manifestations. The absence of people who are educated in the arts and the sciences diminishes our physical infrastructure, however grandiose that infrastructure may be.
Education is as fundamental to the good order of our society as the family unit, so the arguments against tuition fees are as strong today as they ever were. Tuition fees are wrong. They do not raise extra funds for higher education, and the Government’s current tuition fee regime represents the thin edge of the wedge, which may eventually lead to the introduction of top-up fees and full-cost fees. Student hardship is a harsh reality that has been consistently ignored by successive Governments. The discretionary award has been reduced from £6million in 1997-98 to £3·3million in 1999-2000, thus creating major hardship for students wishing to take up second-chance courses and vocational postgraduate qualifications.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)
Student unions are campaigning for a system of funding that will give students enough money to live on while they study without the need to resort to additional debt, low-paid jobs and further parental assistance. We do not have a properly funded education system, and students and parents are being made to suffer rather than being enhanced by it. The NUS/USI (National Union of Students/ Union of Students in Ireland) has clear ideas about the guiding objectives for the future delivery of student support. Any review of student funding must be tested against these objectives as they are the features that NUS/USI believe should be central to any funding regime. A new system should alleviate student hardship through maintenance and benefit support, increase and widen access to further and higher education, bridge the inequalities between funding for further and higher education, ensure equitable funding for both part-time and full-time study and enhance the quality of education on offer.
Those are laudable objectives that any society should aspire to. With regard to student hardship, the NUS/USI student income and expenditure survey of 1998 found that 20% of a sample of students in Northern Ireland owed more than £4,000 to the Student Loans Company. Students in further education only receive on average £656a year in grants, student loans and parental contributions, yet they have an annual expenditure of approximately £3,000,a shortfall of £2,344 ayear.
Average student debt is increasing. The Barclays Bank student debt survey 1998 revealed that graduates expect to have an average debt of £4,497. The findings showed that the cost of attending university has increased by 103% since 1994, while graduate salaries have increased by just 17%.
The NUS student hardship survey of 1999 found that 73·3% of full-time undergraduates, 71·4% of part-time undergraduates and 76·6% of postgraduates were in debt. In addition, mature students have substantially more debt than other students. Student hardship is forcing increasing numbers of students to withdraw from their courses and damaging the quality of academic life. A survey commissioned by the NUS and the GMB trade union in October1995 found that 40% of students worked on average between 12·5 and 20hours a week during term time. Two thirds of those students said that such employment affected their studies - 30% missed lectures and 20% failed to submit coursework due to the pressures imposed by part-time employment.
A follow-up survey specific to the North of Ireland was carried out by the NUS/USI students’ centre in 1998. Was it found that 60% of students relied on part-time work, working an average of 17·7 hours a week. This adds to the difficulties of students attempting to pay their way through university.
Students in the North of Ireland, particularly mature students, are more vulnerable to the increased cost of higher education. Mature students, particularly working-class men, are discouraged from entering higher education by tuition fees. According to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) September 1999 figures, applications from mature students aged between 21 and 24 were 3·4% lower than the previous year, with a drop of 6·6% in students aged 25 or over.
In the North of Ireland, the proportion of mature students in higher education has always been much lower than in Great Britain. In 1997-98, mature students comprised only 18% of the student population, while the equivalent figure in England and the rest of Ireland was 28%.
Research evidence from Profs Cormack, Gallagher and Osborne of the Centre for Research on Higher Education at Queen’s University confirmed that the participation rate of Northern Ireland students is more sensitive to financial issues than for students from Great Britain because of the social class profile of the student population here. They argue that the recent changes to the system of student financial support could have a more detrimental impact on the participation rates of our students.
The majority of the public and local politicians opposed the introduction of tuition fees, and there is substantial public support for the campaign against them. The study ‘Social Attitudes in Northern Ireland: the Fourth Report’ by Breen, Devine and Robinson (1995) found that among a sample of the public, 79% believed that the Government should pay tuition fees, with only 17% saying that students should contribute. The vast majority of local politicians, MPs and councils opposed the introduction of tuition fees. The Northern Ireland Forum for Political Dialogue also strongly condemned the proposals.
Government and education experts recognise the need for adequate funding for students. The Dearing Report on higher education says
"We are concerned however, that the combined value of the grant and state student loan together should not fall behind a level adequate to meet students’ necessary expenditure."
In its manifesto document ‘Lifelong Learning’ the Labour Party says that one of the priorities for lifelong learning must be to tackle student hardship. During the debate on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill on 8 June 1998, David Blunkett assured MPs
"We are talking about ensuring that students have the money at the point when they need it, and that they repay it when they can afford to do so … We are talking about a provision to ensure that no one is in hardship at university."
More recently, the Cubie Report said
"We have no doubt that the student or parental contribution to tuition fees in full-time higher education should be abolished for Scottish students … We are clear, as we have listened to Scotland, that the present arrangements are broadly discredited, add to anxieties about debt and create undue anomalies."
The loss of social security benefits for students increases hardship. For a student under 25 years of age, financial support amounts to a maximum loan of £3,635 a year, or £69·90 a week. State benefits for a person of the same age are: income support of £41·35 a week and housing benefit of £45 a week, a total of £86·35. Students under 25 receive an additional £16·45 a week if on income support and housing benefit, or £855·40 a year. That is more than they would get if they were not students.
The issue is the cost of participating in education. Health care, books, periodicals, special equipment, art materials, computer software, examinations, stationery, photocopying, travel and miscellaneous costs add up to a heavy debt for students and their families. If a son or daughter comes home from university and says that he or she needs this or that, it is very difficult to deny it. Young people are not just furthering their education; they are giving an added dimension to society.
Most parents believe in, and lobby for, free education because education is a cornerstone of society. Education enhances society and puts more, or as much, into it as those who have an education get out of it.
In the chronology of events on student financial support we go back to 1947, mentioned in the last debate. How many people of my age who had free education would not have had a second or third-level education but for the Education (Northern Ireland) Act 1947? I have to ask, as parents and the public ask, about where the money comes from. If my generation, and the generation that many in the House belong to, were able to have free education, why can the children of this generation not? Why should we disadvantage this generation by taking away from them the advantages we had?
If education is as fundamental to society as the family unit, the burden of debt ought to be removed in so far as possible from children and young people and from parents who cannot afford to keep them. How many young people drop out of third-level education because they cannot cope with the debt? How many young people do not go into third-level education because they are afraid of debt?

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close.

Mr John Kelly: I am going to finish now.
Most of the legislation that deprived the education system of the finance it needed was enacted in the late 1970s and the 1980s by a Thatcherite Government. We should be able, taking upon ourselves the power if need be, to reverse all those changes that have disadvantaged students and burdened them, their parents and society at large with debt.

Ms Jane Morrice: Given the number of Members who have asked to speak and the time that has been allowed for this debate, which is 90 minutes, I ask Members to keep their contributions below seven minutes. The Minister will have 15 minutes, and the winding-up speech will be given 10 minutes.

Dr Esmond Birnie: This is an important matter. Some of the points that will emerge this afternoon were considered at length in the debate on the Committee’s report last November. Members were also able to raise issues during the Budget debates.
Nevertheless, there have been interesting developments on student debt recently. The motion refers to student debt rather than to the other, albeit related, issue of tuition fees. Two particularly important pieces of evidence have been released, one in December 2000 and the other earlier this month. The Callender and Kemp study, commissioned by the Department for Education and Employment, indicates that in 1998-99 the average net level of debt for students across the United Kingdom lay between £1,500 and £5,000 — the actual amounts varying with the background and circumstances of the individual student. Those figures could be worse, given the removal of the maintenance grants since then, although we do not know for sure. However, we must bear that in mind during today’s debate.
Secondly, there is an ongoing inquiry by the House of Commons Education Select Committee. Its investigations seem to indicate that the existence of student debt, or at least the perception or fear of it, is a significant deterrent to students, particularly those from a low-income background. Hence we see an obstacle to achieving the wider access to higher and further education that we desire.
The House of Commons is also indicating — and we should pay special attention to this — that the impact of debt is leading to an increase in drop-out rates in UK higher education institutions. Again it seems that students coming from lower-income or disadvantaged backgrounds are hardest hit. It is undesirable, socially iniquitous and a waste of the valuable and limited resources within higher education if students drop out once they are in the system and fail to complete their degrees or other courses.
What then can be done? Towards the end of last year the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment produced a package of proposals to deal with these problems. The Committee believes that these proposals represent a contribution on the behalf of students from lower-income backgrounds and would, if implemented, act as a deterrent against their dropping out.
We placed great emphasis on expanding the number of student places in the Province partly because some potential students would prefer to stay here than move to Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland or further afield. It is cheaper for them to stay in Northern Ireland than move away from home.
Then, in December, the Minister announced his proposals for this broad area. On behalf of the Committee, I welcome them as a start in dealing with some of the more serious problems that relate to student support and widening social access to further and higher education. In due course, more detail will be required on his reformed package. This will include the level of the reintroduced maintenance grants or bursaries. It will also detail how the means-testing system will operate in respect of such support and what the interaction will be between student support and the wider social security system — a UK-wide issue that the interdepartmental working group is working on. Given the Minister’s proposals, how will selective assistance, particularly for further education students, for areas of skills shortages operate? Furthermore, how will it operate given the commitment to equity and social need?
We need adequate implementation of the package of proposals that we first heard about in mid-December. That will involve the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment working in close conjunction with the Department of Finance and Personnel. Indeed, in the medium to long term, it will involve the entire Executive because the indications in December suggested that a substantial amount of the additional funding required will come through the mechanism of Executive programme funds. I endorse the sentiments of the motion.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: The subject of the motion is topical and of immense relevance to the student body and their families.
The Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment welcomed the Minister’s recent announcement on student finance in so far as it goes. We have still to learn the details of the proposals and the impact they will have on student debt. We await those details from the Department.
There is overwhelming evidence that debt in the student population has now reached unprecedented levels. Survey after survey has shown this, and the Chairperson referred to the most recent survey carried out on behalf of the Department for Education and Employment by Callender and Kemp.
Personal interviews with 2,800 students representing full-time and part-time undergraduates throughout the United Kingdom confirmed that more students owed much larger sums of money to a broader range of creditors last year than they did three years ago. The report concluded that almost 90% of students face financial difficulties. By the end of the 1998-99 academic year, full-time students anticipated owing three times as much as students in 1995-96 — just three years earlier and prior to the introduction of the student loan scheme.
Regrettably, higher and further education has become associated with debt. Surely there is not one Member who has not been told by constituents, or indeed family members or friends, that they may not be able to afford to send their children to university because of the lack of financial support. Many families are guilt-ridden because of their inability to support their children through education without recourse to student loans. Callender reported that 35% of students surveyed had to pay the full £1,000 parental contribution towards their fees themselves.
The Callender Report also highlighted an increase in overall borrowing by students, including borrowing from financial institutions and on credit cards, often at rates of interest that can only be described as usurious. Whichever figures you rely on, on graduation our young people face a wall of debt, repayable at a time when they may be considering marriage, buying a house or starting a family.
Debt can have a corrosive influence on family life. It does not impact solely on an individual student; there are major implications for the whole family. For many, servicing debt is the first call on family resources. Once a cycle of debt is entered into, it requires considerable skill to manage it and break the cycle of ever-increasing borrowing. All financial institutions realise this. Financial behaviour learnt at an early age lasts through life. That is why credit card companies and banks target students.
The old adage "Neither a borrower nor a lender be" was once considered good advice to pass on to children. Today’s students seem far more attuned to the idea of credit than were previous generations. In many cases they do so without fully realising their responsibility to discharge that debt, which will be done from a position of weakness when many will be entering into domestic and financial commitments associated with adult life.
I cannot advocate this as a good development, and many share my concerns. It is wrong to launch students into the world of work with an albatross of debt around their necks. The Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment report on student finance shows the balance between what is affordable and our desire to enable everyone to have access to lifelong learning. We deliberately sought assurances that resources would be ring-fenced for student finance, having identified the fear of debt and the wall of debt to be tackled. The Committee will support the Minister’s new proposals if they will clearly have an impact on removing the fear of debt and reducing its level. Members would like to have provided more generous support for students, but there is a limit on the funds allocated to Northern Ireland and many other groups who also need help.
Finally, we must aim to change the perception that a degree is the only route to well-paid employment and job satisfaction. People can become trapped in a cycle of debt because of problems with literacy, numeracy and a lack of basic skills. They have low expectations, and they are constrained to low-paid employment with no hope of breaking out of the cycle.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member will draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: We must continue to invest in our most valuable resource — human capital.

Mr John Dallat: I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and to reiterate my party’s commitment to addressing the issue of student debt. As someone who has spent 30 years in the teaching profession at different levels, both here and in the Republic, I attach a great deal of importance to the needs of students. In the short time that the Minister has been in office, there has been broad support for what he has been able to do, given the competing needs for a finite budget.
I invite the Minister to reaffirm that he will continue to treat this issue as a priority. I also ask him to return to the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment at an early date to discuss further his proposals of 15December. Dr Farren acknowledged then that living costs are a key issue for students in third-level education and that those living costs cannot be addressed without looking at the needs of the most disadvantaged people — those on low incomes.
The announcement on 15 December gave rise to broad agreement from the vice-chancellors of the two universities that the £65 million package would result in a fairer and more stable community through inclusion. The Students’ Union president at Queen’s University, MrPaul Callaghan, said that the package would take nearly three out of every five students out of fee-paying. Mr Callaghan went on to welcome the assistance for mature students and the streamlining of procedures for student loans.
I hope that the Minister can reaffirm his commitment to do everything possible to address student debt because that is a priority for the Assembly Committee. The issue of student support set a precedent for the way in which important business is dealt with by the Assembly and has shown the importance of having local, accountable and responsible institutions. The concept of consensus government is innovative, and there will inevitably be criticisms. That in itself is no bad thing.
However, we cannot have the luxury of power to make demands without the responsibility that goes with that power. The Executive agreed the package of £65 million of new money for students in need. It targets social need, and nobody would disagree with that. The package addresses debt by reintroducing grants and introducing specific measures such as childcare grants and selective fee remission. No one could argue with those measures, and I ask the Minister to pledge his continued support to keep this issue a priority. The students’ unions have highlighted the need to increase and widen access to further and higher education. That has been done.
I ask the Minister to say what additional places will be available in the universities so that fewer students have to travel abroad for education.
Prof Paddy Murphy, Director of the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education, has welcomed the abolition of fees for full-time further education students in key skills. He has predicted that the increased spending on further education will assist strategic planning for higher education places for selected industries, and we are all agreed that these are key to Northern Ireland’s economic growth.
Since 1984, there has been a consistent attack on the assistance given to students. In 1997, when Labour had its landslide victory, we all hoped for improvements, but within two months the Dearing Report was published, recommending that graduates contribute to their fees. Since then other draconian measures have been taken to which my party and I are fundamentally opposed.
The Assembly has enabled a locally elected Minister to begin to address issues that have caused students great hardship. He has been able to include groups that have been ignored in the past and to target social need. The battle will continue. The SDLP has a long and proud record of forming and advocating policies to equip young people with the highest standards of education and training. These are the most powerful weapons available to address injustices of the past.
This motion enables the Minister to reaffirm his commitment to these ideals, and for that reason I support it.

Mr Sean Neeson: Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I have a son and daughter at university. However, I recognise the sensitivity of the issue and how important it is to many young people. Third-level education is a human right. As we move into the new society and the new economic environment, people must be able to develop their potential. That is why this is such an important issue.
I agree with Mervyn Carrick about not simply talking about degree education. Further education must develop to meet the needs of the new society we are creating. There is a danger of creating an elite in education because impossible impediments are being placed on low-income families.
Another issue that needs to be addressed is that students have been working part-time, not necessarily just since the introduction of fees. When I was at university, I worked part-time. However, there is now a greater onus on young people to take part-time jobs, sometimes working very unsocial hours. This often deprives them of time to study for the courses they are following. The Assembly should also consider the sorts of jobs they are taking. They are low-paid jobs, which enables many employers to employ people at very low wages.
My Colleague, Eileen Bell, has often referred to the Cubie Report, which should be studied closely by the Minister and his Department. It is not a free handout. It has its implications. Cubie concluded
"We are not persuaded that a principle of free education should apply in all circumstances. Indeed, fairness suggests that those who gain from higher education should make an appropriate and timely contribution in respect of the benefits gained."
That is why the Scottish Parliament abolished tuition fees and instituted a graduate endowment. Fees are collected from graduates once they earn over £25,000. It is not a handout altogether.
While I welcomed the Minister’s announcement before Christmas, he did not go far enough. He has restored maintenance grants to students from low-income families, but much more can be done. Those from the poorest sections of society must be helped; and that is acknowledged by everyone here today. However, Cubie and his committee found that up-front tuition fees and the loan structure work against access for those very people who also have a traditional aversion to debt. The system dissuades them from even considering further education. We do too little to help those from lower and middle- income groups, while not demanding enough from those in the highest income groups.
Furthermore, we should bear in mind all the other costs that are involved with being a student. Those from rural areas have high transport cost or have to pay for rented accommodation, which is sometimes of a very low standard. Is this the sort of environment that we want for our students here? Scotland has taken the lead and has shown that it can afford it. This Assembly can afford it as well.
Huge gaps still exist in the postgraduate provision and the funding for mature students. The Minister appreciates the importance of this sector, given the university environment that he comes from. Career development loans are available to students from Northern Ireland who are doing certain courses in Great Britain, but such loans are not available to those studying here. How can we defend that?
We must move away from loans to finance higher education to a system more closely linked to the income of students. We must expand provision for postgraduate students, mature students, part-time students and those from non-traditional student backgrounds. This must be done imaginatively, not by simply allowing more students to acquire larger debts. The present system here benefits few, other than the banks. I am pleased that Mr John Kelly has raised this issue, and Alliance will be supporting the motion.

Prof Monica McWilliams: First, I will reiterate the type of financial package recommended by the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment Committee. Over many weeks, it carried out research based on the Cubie model and international comparisons. One of the key issues in the discussion was tuition fees. It was pleasing to note that the Minister’s report said that there will be a 2% increase in the number of people who do not have to pay fees here. Given the lower income levels in Northern Ireland, this will improve the situation. Approximately 50% of students are exempt from tuition fees compared to about 45% elsewhere. Nonetheless, it is of major concern that 50% of students are still excluded.
There is no point in referring to the 1960s; let us simply refer to the 1990s. Today, 50% of students are paying fees. They did not have to do so earlier in the 1990s, and this is contributing to the problem of student debt. We tackled this issue, and the Minister was critical of the recommendations, because they would not have helped students from Northern Ireland who are living in Scotland or elsewhere. I reiterate the point that at the British-Irish Council there is an attempt to convince the devolved regions to make changes that will apply to students throughout the devolved regions.
Let us make this a priority for any future education agenda. Let us not have entirely different recommendations for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If the system remains as it is, students will face complications, no matter where they go. One of the major problems with the system is that it has become more complex, not less so, despite our attempts to simplify it.
Part of the problem of debt is the amount of information that a student has to take on board. As Mr Neeson pointed out, increasingly parents have children attending different universities in different countries under different systems. There is an increasing problem of debt, depending on where a student is based. That is why we also recommended a one-stop advice shop.
Taxation consultants have shown how out of date the Inland Revenue recommendations are — they go back to before 1997, before tuition fees were introduced. The consultants recommend that urgent action be taken to update that information. That will involve action by the Minister and action in the areas of social security and taxation. We need to co-ordinate these systems.
The report states that millions and millions of pounds are left over because, in certain circumstances, money has not been paid back to students. Students who moved from full-time to part-time employment or to summer employment, who did not know that they should not have been paying tax in the first place, or whose PAYE contributions were not paid back to them after they were forced to pay them, have all lost out through the tax system. That has increased the complexity of this problem.
Then there is the social security system. I note that the authors of the recent report of the Social Security Advisory Committee to the Government share our disappointment that their recommendations have not been adopted. Those recommendations focus on intercalated students who move from full-time to part-time study; on those who may be entitled to jobseeker’s allowance and some form of income support; and on single parents who have children over 16. Having stipulated the parts of the system that let students down, they recommend introducing regulations to deal with the problem.
Time and time again the Committee has to deal with the regulations, because the legislation is so complex and did not get them right at the start. The legislation can never be right, because the situation is ever-changing. We constantly have to pass regulations to deal with anomalies and ambiguities in the legislation. Indeed, within less than a year we have had to pass a number of regulations to deal with students who have fallen through the gaps. Also, the NUS/USI has asked us not to pass one regulation that relates to social security because it would simply worsen student debt.
As a representative for South Belfast, where most students live, I am absolutely appalled at their living conditions in this new century. Anyone who pays us a visit will also note that while two children died awful deaths by fire on Sunday morning, so too did a student last year who was living in such poor accommodation, with such poor furniture, that the fire spread very quickly and death occurred.
Until we give students a reasonable income, landlords will have no reason to improve their properties. Appalling rents make for appalling standards in which students have to live, and this affects the whole community. I can bear witness to the deterioration of the university community in recent years.
I also want a response on the childcare issue. The Minister made proposals about childcare allowances, but he did not give us any details. This issue faces many students who are parents — they have to pay large sums of money to have their children taken care of, and they cannot afford to do so.
Finally, I would like an equality impact statement on the decision that only those in key skill areas will get particular privilege. Many of those areas do not cross the gender barrier. I would be very concerned about humanities and arts in academic institutions if we concentrate exemptions on hard subjects only.

Mr Joe Byrne: I am grateful to all who have contributed to the debate. I want to support the motion and reiterate that this is a big problem for many students, whether studying at home, in Britain or in the Republic.
Many contributors have referred to the fact that student debt has been increasing for years. I contend that over the last 10years that increase has been significant. Within the last four to fiveyears, we have seen a particularly sharp rise because of the up-front tuition fees. Over the last three to fouryears, the mandatory maintenance awards have been abolished and the discretionary awards substantially cut.
However, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to tackling the problem. The package of measures that he announced on 15December was a good attempt to address many of the issues. The greatest problem has been limited finance. I have lectured in further education for 20 years and have encouraged many people to go on to higher education. I would like to see more resources being directed towards student support. However, that budget is finite. Fewer people will be paying fees, which I welcome, but I would like to see no students paying any fees for any further or higher education course.
Student accommodation is a big problem in places such as south Belfast, Jordanstown and Derry. I agree with other Members that students are living in absolutely atrocious conditions and paying very high rents. The health and safety of some of their houses is also an issue. I would like to see some form of social housing for students with minimum-quality standards and co-ordination between the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment and the Department for Social Development. Parents and students would like to see that too. Queen’s University has student houses, but only a limited number. Many landlords are ripping students off, and that is adding to their hardship.
Students are dropping out of higher education courses because of their worries over debt. I take phone calls from students at universities in Britain about their hardship. I encouraged those students to go to Britain. They could not get into university here because of the higher entrance qualifications.
That leads to my second point. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to increasing the number of higher education places here, but there must be an even greater commitment to providing even more. I would also ask that these places be not concentrated in Belfast and Derry alone. If fewer maintenance grants are to be made available to students, we must provide higher education places for them closer to where they live. More further education colleges should be asked to provide higher education courses throughout Northern Ireland rather than confining them to a few centres alone.
As parents, we all know the pain that some students endure, and many families are faced with debt. I know parents who have two or three children at university, and providing for them is a major problem. It is even more difficult if the students come from an area where there is very little employment and they cannot get summer jobs. An added burden is that they cannot register for social security benefits. Where a student genuinely cannot get a summer or part-time job, it is unjust that he cannot register for social security benefits. Surely in the twenty- first century we should be caring enough to allow such students to be given some money. This adds to family problems and burdens parents who cannot provide for their student son or daughter. It is a terrible dilemma for them.
Lastly, I fully support the motion and hope that over the next year or two the Assembly can address some of its main concerns, particularly the misery that is visited on students and families in debt. The Minister was sensitive when he initiated his package of 15 December 2000, a package that was skewed towards lower-income families and in which TSN factors were addressed.

Mr William Hay: This is not the first time I have tried to tackle student finance and poverty. For months, finding a solution to this problem has been uppermost in the minds of members of the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. The House will agree that high cost and a fear of debt deters people of all ages from entering higher education.
Many families struggle to pay fees and meet living costs, and for mature students with dependants there can be a benefits trap. Over the last five to 10 years, means-tested grants and student loans, for full-time undergraduates in particular, together with the removal of social security benefits, have added to student debt. In fact, 60% of students here now work part-time, some for 17 to 20 hours a week. We can tell from those figures that their studies must be affected.
University figures show that 87% of students face financial hardship of some kind. That is a serious indictment of us as public representatives and parents, and we must try to resolve the problems. However, if we are serious about addressing them, we must look at what is required in third-level education and target the most disadvantaged students. Student debt trebled between 1995-96 and 1998-99, and hardship is widespread across both communities. Neither loses out when it comes to this.
Education is a right. I never want to see a day when it becomes a privilege. That would be totally wrong. More research needs to be done to determine exactly how many students are dropping out of courses for financial reasons. A funding scheme that provides students with enough money to live on while they study, without their needing to incur additional debt, is also required.
Some students are going to financial institutions to try to obtain money, but some are going to loan sharks. As public representatives, we have a moral duty to address this problem, but it will not be easy. We are looking at many years of rising to the challenge and at many years during which successive British Governments did not deal with student finance and poverty. This matter will be raised in the House in the coming months and years. It is uppermost in the minds of those in the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment. Although the Committee has produced a report that is useful not only to ourselves but to the Minister as well, we will revisit the issue in the future.

Ms Jane Morrice: This is the first occasion on which the Assembly will hear what can properly be described as a maiden speech. Members will be aware that it is the custom in other places to hear a maiden speech without interruption, a practice I commend to the Assembly. I call Mrs Annie Courtney.

Mrs Annie Courtney: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to address the Assembly. I also welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on student debt, coming from an area that has high unemployment and where student numbers are increasing in Magee College and the colleges of further and higher education. This issue affects both communities.
Various surveys have been carried out recently, but the one with which we are all familiar is the student income survey which was published in the ‘Financial Times’ on 21December2000. It said
"1 in 10 students had thought of dropping out of university for financial reasons."
The Government have insisted that the abolition of grants and the introduction of means-tested tuition fees have not deterred the disadvantaged from further education. The report, which examined the period 1998-99, was commissioned by the Department for Education and Employment. The president of the National Union of Students said that the student expenditure survey was a
"damning indictment of the Government’s funding system."
The chief executive of Universities UK said the group is
"likely to use evidence of debt to justify a new bursaries and scholarships system."
The report found that at the end of 1999, the debt of a full-time student was £2473; £777 more than three years before. For a lone parent, the figure was £4747. This is how students are suffering.
The Minister’s announcement of an extra £65 million to overhaul student finance was warmly welcomed, particularly in key skill areas, which, traditionally, have been the poor relations of education. This represents a significant switch of emphasis towards funding education for selective economic development rather than the traditional broad academic approach. This is welcome, given the Minister’s intention to increase higher education places again in 2002-03. It targets those most in need, promotes social inclusion and gives greater access to disadvantaged and under-represented groups.
The raising of the student fee contribution threshold from £17,800 to £20,000 means that nearly three out of five students in higher education will not pay any fees. A further fifth will pay only partial fees. The further introduction of means-tested access bursaries will help those most in need. Considerable investment is now being made in third-level students, and the Minister has made it clear that last month’s package is only a start. He is committed to improving the position of students further as resources permit.
I thank Members for their attention and support the motion.

Dr Sean Farren: I have listened to the debate with considerable interest and have no difficulty in supporting the motion. Members know that the issue is of deep concern and interest to me. I have devoted much time to addressing the matter as effectively and fairly as possible. I have approached the issue bearing in mind the twin social principles of the Good Friday Agreement — targeting social need and equality of opportunity in further and higher education, training and employment, for which I am responsible.
On 15 December 2000 I outlined to the Assembly Committee my proposals for changes to the student support arrangements, and followed this up with a public announcement. I hope that I left Committee members, Assembly Members and the public in no doubt of my determination to address student financial support in as positive and comprehensive a way possible in our present circumstances.
The package I announced will give more than £60 million to student financial support over the next three years above that which is currently provided. I acknowledge the positive comments that many Members, if not most, have made, notwithstanding the fact that many would like me to have gone further. I wanted to go much further, but we do work with limited resources.
On 18 December 2000 my Colleague, the Minister of Finance and Personnel, reinforced my announcement in his Budget speech. He made it clear that my proposals have the full support of my Executive Colleagues. He said that funding was being provided through additions to my budget for 2001-02 and through Executive programme funds for future years. Details of the proposals are subject to further evaluation by the Department of Finance and Personnel and others, notably the Equality Commission, before a final announcement can be made. I indicated that to the Committee, and the Minister of Finance and Personnel did likewise in his Budget statement
I hope that the Committee will take time to deliberate on my proposals and discuss them with me — I was invited by the Chairperson to return to the Committee and have agreed to do so — before coming to the Assembly with its considered response. Today’s debate, to which many members of the Committee have contributed, is not the end of the matter, though the broad direction of my proposals is clear.
My proposals have been fully endorsed by the Executive. They address the need to target additional support to those who need it most, which many Members have emphasised. The Committee, while still concerned about my intention on fees, has welcomed many of these proposals, and many are in line with the recommendations in the Committee’s report.
The further evaluation of my proposals is now under way, and I hope very soon to set out the details for consultation under the Department’s equality scheme. Reference was made to the need to demonstrate how the proposals meet equality requirements. I will be only too pleased to do so. As Members of the Assembly, and in particular members of the Committee, know, the Equality Commission itself has to cast its rigorous eye over the proposals before they are finally endorsed.
I now want to address the substance of the issues before us this afternoon. I recognised on taking office that student support arrangements were in need of review, and initiating that review was among the first public commitments I made. If I recall correctly, I did so within two weeks of taking office.
It was not an issue on which I needed prompting to decide that action was needed. It has been a priority for me and will continue to be. Some, not in this Chamber and not always in Northern Ireland, have argued that against a rising level of student participation in higher education — an increase which this year was at 5% over the preceding year — there was no need to look at this matter. I rejected that argument. My direct knowledge of the situation and my reading of the reports on the matter made it clear to me that there was an urgent need to address the question.
Mr J Kelly chose student debt as a centrepiece for the debate, and in so doing he reinforced two key aspects of my proposals. First, living costs is the really important issue for students in higher and further education. It is important in addressing that to look at the needs of the most disadvantaged, those on lowest incomes or those whose parents or those supporting them have lower incomes than average.
My proposals directly address those two important issues. However, loans have made an important contribution to student support since 1990 when the major expansion of higher education was in full swing, and they are likely to continue to be a vital element in student support for many years. The Executive, like the Executive in Scotland and the London Government, could not afford a support system without a loans element. Indeed, the Assembly Committee itself has endorsed a loan system as a key feature of its proposals for the future.
If implemented, the Committee’s proposals would increase rather than reduce the debt faced by graduates. Through the recommendation that graduates repay the student fee contribution as well as any loan obligations they have incurred during the course of their studies, virtually all graduates would face a greater repayment requirement than at present. This requirement would also be greater than that which will pertain under the proposals I have announced. Under the Committee’s recommendations, even students who are presently exempt from a fee contribution would have to contribute to the graduate endowment fund. Let us remember that the existing loan system is highly subsidised by taxpayers.
Student loans represent an investment of £90 million a year. In present circumstances the Executive could not afford to change this without severely damaging other services such as health, transport and school education. As Members who are calling for the abolition of the loans also supported the Budget proposals passed here several weeks ago, perhaps they would tell me and the Executive where the additional funding should come from. If it should come from my Department’s budget, I need to be told which services to curtail — services to the unemployed, university places, research, training programmes or what? We must recognise the constraints within which we operate. Indeed, outside my Department, what other services might be affected by the need to find funds on such a substantial scale?
Furthermore, it is important to appreciate that the current loans offer a reasonable deal to students. Loans are not repaid until a graduate is in employment and earning a minimum of £10,000 per year. They are repaid at a zero rate of interest, and annually no more than 9% of income is taken in repayment. Some 75% of students now take out a loan, and the average amount is £3,200. I remind Members that the private rate of return to those with a degree is 20% above those without a degree. That figure is widely acknowledged in research literature on this issue. Sir Ron Dearing, Mr Andrew Cubie and many other commentators in education agree — and the Committee itself accepts the principle — that those who benefit most from higher education should contribute to their living costs while studying.
Abolishing Government supported provision for student loans, as some suggest, would not be a progressive move. In their absence, students would undoubtedly have recourse to loans from commercial institutions on much less favourable terms than those available from the Student Loans Company. In such circumstances, student debt would be considerably increased instead of reduced.
The review has been a complex exercise with a competing range of approaches to explore and evaluate. In the past, policy was to maintain parity with England and Wales, but the review also had to consider the Cubie Report and the Scottish Executive’s response. Further changes are underway in England and are also likely in Wales.
The review focused on several broad objectives. I will briefly outline the main provisions on higher education, the subject of today’s motion. Raising the contribution threshold from £17,000 to £20,000 means that over 50% of students will not contribute to fees, while a further 20% will contribute only partially. Fewer than 30% will make the full contribution, which is just over £1,000 a year.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
A childcare grant to assist mature students on low incomes will be introduced. Means-tested bursaries and other access measures to widen access to full-time higher education to those from lower socio-economic groups will also be introduced. The minimum loan available to students whose parents or spouses have residual incomes of over £46,000 a year will be constrained to enable resources to be redirected and targeted on assistance for students from lower-income families.
I hope to introduce learning accounts for certain part-time courses to encourage lifelong learning and greater participation in part-time vocational higher education. The introduction of such accounts may meet the concerns expressed by one of the contributors about the absence of career development loans.
More domestic places from 2002-03 will be provided, and they will, in part, be used to increase participation from lower socio-economic groups and address skills shortages. The Educational Guidance Service for Adults will be asked to provide a service to mature higher education students in co-operation with their representatives, and my officials will work with the education and library boards and student representatives to develop material for advising potential students on finance.
Madam Deputy Speaker — Mr Speaker, sorry. I did not notice that you had slipped into the Chamber.

Mr Speaker: I am relieved that that is the reason for the Member’s reference.

Dr Sean Farren: Mr Speaker, perhaps you did not hear, though I trust that others did, the rationale, in so far as I could offer it in the short time available to me, of my proposals and their general direction and content.
Today’s debate has helped to maintain a considerable level of interest in this issue, on which there is wide concern. My proposals mark a beginning and show that our devolved institutions can, and will, make a difference. I trust, as we take this debate forward in the Committee and the Assembly, and with representatives of educational institutions and students, that we will through that dialogue ensure that we maximise the level of support, and make it as efficient, effective, fair and equitable as possible to all who want to involve themselves in further and higher education at whatever level.

Mr John Kelly: A Cheann Comhairle, in moving this motion I was driven by the notion that we, elected Members, have an obligation to address issues that are critical to the citizens who elected us. Health and education are two critical issues in our emerging democracy, and it is difficult to distinguish between them.
I am delighted that the Minister attended, but somewhat disappointed by his unwillingness to address many issues that were raised by Members. In many ways he misrepresented the Committee. At the core of our report, agreed across the Committee, is the notion of, and belief in, the abolition of student fees and the concept of an education system free from debt. Despite our differences, that was at the core of what the Committee for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment wanted. The Committee may — and I am sure that it will — go into that issue with the Minister in greater detail.
I shall not delay proceedings; they have already been delayed today. I thank the members of the Committee who contributed to the debate, particularly the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson. It is important that Members use the Assembly for the reasons for which they were elected and discuss matters that affect those who elected them; if we have done that today, we have not wasted time.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment to address urgently the critical state of student debt.

Homelessness

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I beg to move
That this Assembly calls on the Minister for Social Development to make greater provision for people presenting themselves as homeless during this time of the year and to outline his plans to deal with the increasing numbers of homeless people throughout the year.
I am sure Members are aware that the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Durkan, secured £30,000 to be administered by the Minister for Social Development, Mr Morrow, to help reduce the plight of the homeless over Christmas. I congratulate both Ministers on securing that funding and administering it so rapidly. That was not an act of tokenism; it was a recognition of a serious and pressing problem.
Throughout the festive period everyone speaks of the season of goodwill. By supporting the motion unanimously, we will continue that goodwill towards the homeless, and homelessness is a serious and growing problem. Despite the imaginative schemes and hard work done by a range of groups and voluntary bodies, despite good leadership and practice by the Housing Executive and despite additional funding, homelessness has risen by 17·6% in the past five years and continues to grow.
A cursory look at the urgent waiting list of the Housing Executive shows that about 11,000 families are waiting to be housed, and perhaps as many as 100,000 people are awaiting adequate accommodation. Those figures are based on details of officially registered homeless people, and an even greater number of people present themselves as homeless. There has been criticism that the standards for admission to the homeless lists are too severe. In addition, there is evidence that many other homeless people, especially young people, do not even present themselves. The application process is often cited as a hurdle.
We must have controls to avoid abuses of the system, and there is well-documented evidence of abuse. However, if the controls are too strict and contribute to the escalating problem, the Department should re-examine the matter.
There are several dimensions to the problem. First, there are those who are homeless, who are on the Housing Executive’s waiting list, and who have no family or friendship network of support. One of the worst growing aspects of this is the lone, or separated, parent with young children who has to be placed in bed-and- breakfast accommodation. In south Down the general practice is for such people to leave their premises after breakfast and walk the streets of the town until bedtime. The misery of such a situation is unacceptable. It is a problem for the Department for Social Development, and it could be ameliorated simply by more suitable housing and temporary accommodation.
Homelessness among young people is another dimension to the problem. There are two main reasons. First, there can be a family breakdown or some form of abuse. Financial or serious internal conflict can drive a young person from the family home. Such young people are among the most vulnerable, and guidance is essential to help them avoid a pattern of living that becomes self- destructive. In value-for-money terms, a little spending now could mean future savings in health, law and order and other areas.
The second area involves young people leaving care, and this compounds the homeless problem. There are several serious problems here. First, there is insufficient support and preparation for young people before they are cast adrift from care. Secondly, young people leave care a year before they are eligible for a Housing Executive tenancy or housing benefits. They are simply unable to get a tenancy. At that stage the Housing Executive requires a guarantor. Can you imagine how difficult that is for such a young person? Often, social services act — but not always. It is a situation of great concern.
In addition to the difficulties faced by these young people, coming out of care and trying to manage alone is a major challenge. It is difficult for those with no knowledge of the effects of institutionalisation to envisage the extent of that challenge. The problems range from personal hygiene to financial and tenancy management. Such young people should not have to cope on their own. This is where the problem crosses from the Department for Social Development to the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The levels of support are very poor.
The situation is even more pronounced among those who have had mental or institutionalised disorders and who are now in the community as a result of the last Government’s community care policies. Community care is an excellent idea and is approved by practitioners at all levels. However, it is an expensive option, and attempts to introduce it on the cheap lead to disaster. Many of those so released are now among the most difficult homeless cases. Clearly, this is not just a social problem; there is a great need for health and social services to help housing specialists, who are, after all, only housing specialists. There are many examples of dedicated, hard- working social workers who are simply overwhelmed by the volume and complexity of their work, and I know many examples of breakdown, staff shortages and totally inadequate, and in some cases non-existent, funding.
I am glad that Mr Morrow is here this afternoon, for he is the prime mover in this. I appeal to him to liaise with his Colleague in Health, Social Services and Public Safety no matter how difficult he may find that to ensure that there is a greater standard of support for people in these situations. However, even that will not deal with the whole problem. There are people with whom, for a wide variety of reasons, other agencies find it too challenging to deal. Some positive and substantial efforts have been made to ensure that some of their needs have been addressed, but not enough.
Some of the Christmas funding went to help outreach projects offering the most basic support to those who are termed "the roofless". We must ensure that these projects are getting the support they need, because the alternative is to leave people to die in the streets. This is what is happening. Some people may be shocked by these figures. Many can see the problem for themselves when they see people begging in Dublin. In London, the problem manifests itself in what are called "cardboard cities", but here it is a hidden problem. Many bodies are working tirelessly to combat it, but people are still falling through a system that appears to be flawed. How else could the problem have escalated as it has?
This is a particularly poignant time of year to address this issue. For those who were lucky enough to be with their families over Christmas and are now looking forward to starting the new year, it is easy to forget those who do not have the simplest of necessities, such as somewhere they can call home. After the right to life, the right to a home must be a very close second, and there is a huge amount to do to tackle this growing trend. We need to re-examine the application process and ensure that in an attempt to stop abuse, individuals are not being prevented from getting the service they need.
Suitable housing must be provided, and to prevent even more people from becoming homeless, more adequate temporary accommodation must be made available, and temporary accommodation must mean just that — a stopgap home, not an inadequate substitute.
We need more support for young people leaving care, personal support and the ability to rent accommodation. Some very successful stepping-stone projects have been run in the past. They provided a home for young people in similar situations. It was the young peoples responsibility to take care of the home with some supervision, and that prepared them for living alone. A study some years ago showed that 35% of hostel dwellers were suffering from mental health problems, some of which ranged from middle to severe in degree. We need to examine the issue of community care, establish where it has been failing us and put it right.
I urge Members to support my call for adequate provision to be made to ensure that everyone has somewhere to live, surely a basic right. We made a start with the money at Christmas. We made a difference, but we can make an even greater difference. We must do better so that the blight of homelessness and the way in which that points to an uncaring society does not become the norm.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the motion moved by Mr ONeill on a matter that concerns most of us. When you live in an affluent society and in an area where you do not see people sleeping in the streets, you tend to think that there is not a problem. However, when you have an advice centre and are in touch with constituents, you see where the problems are. There are very clear problems with homelessness, and I am glad to have this opportunity to make some points to which the Minister may be able to respond.
It is not just homelessness that is the issue, but the hopelessness of homelessness. It is people who have nowhere to go, no homes and no family. Those are the people we are trying to help, and this is our opportunity to do something. In the last couple of years, we have seen the impact of homelessness and the desperation of those who have nowhere to go and who may sleep in a cardboard box, on a park bench or in the open. However, when we try, as elected representatives, to get them accommodation, we find a problem with housing associations and the Housing Executive. Some who present themselves to the Housing Executive have nowhere to go. Most are single, many have health or addiction problems, many have no money and all are vulnerable and desperate for help. The one thing that has had an impact upon me is that desperation. We must focus on the problem and do something quickly.
There is no age limit on homelessness. The homeless can be elderly, middle-aged or, more often, young. When they go to the Housing Executive to be pointed, many find that they have no points. The circumstances can be desperate. Often it is younger people, 16 to 17 year-olds and those up to 25, who have lived at home and fallen out with their parents who have nowhere to go. They are desperate and alone, with no one to help. A society should be judged by its attitude to people who are vulnerable. If we want a society that helps such people, we have to look at what we are doing as elected representatives.
Some of those people do not meet the criteria needed for points for the housing list. We know what happens now — they have nowhere to go. Will the Minister say what steps his Department is going to take to enable such people to qualify for housing?
We need to address the concerns of many and ensure that the homeless get accommodation. Adequate, satisfactory alternative accommodation must be offered to those in need. I have heard of such people being offered hostel accommodation, which has turned out to be "hostile" accommodation. They were moved to certain areas and had to move out because of intimidation.
If they cannot get hostel accommodation in their area, they are moved to places outside it, such as Downpatrick, Larne or Limavady. That is how far some people from the Ards and Strangford areas have had to go to get accommodation. They were moved right out and into areas where they did not feel happy. Already vulnerable and worried about what was happening, they found themselves in areas where, sometimes, their political viewpoints were at odds with those of the locals.
We want to look at the alternative accommodation that is offered. We have to ensure that people are, by and large, housed in hostels in their areas to ensure that they do not have these problems. I ask the Minister to look at that as well, because it seems, certainly in the area that I come from, that hostel accommodation is not always available and people find themselves in areas where they do not want to be.
I also ask the Minister to respond on the problem of homeless people with young children. They move from school to school while their parents try to find accommodation. It is an unsettled time for the family and very unsettling for the children. It should be possible to provide accommodation within their areas or in areas where they intend to go to give consistency in their education. That is particularly worrying for parents and elected representatives, and I ask that that matter also be taken on board.

Mr Speaker: Order. I ask the Member, and all subsequent Members, to speak for not more than seven minutes because of the number of Members who also wish to speak.

Mr Jim Shannon: My apologies, Mr Speaker. I did not realise that there was a time limit.
In conclusion, there should be co-ordination between all the Departments and bodies to address the homelessness problem. We have all received figures from the Simon Community showing a 5% decrease in the problem. Can the Minister confirm that this decrease in the past year will not lead to complacency and that he will ensure that the downward trend, if there is one, continues?

Mr Ivan Davis: Members receive a variety of information on a regular basis. Some is interesting, and some is serious, but this little brochure from the Simon Community really spells out what homelessness means. It states
"Our home is very important to all of us. It gives shelter and warmth. A home is somewhere that provides us with independence. It is somewhere where we can feel safe and secure. It gives us privacy when we want to be alone. It allows us to open the door to family and friends when we want to enjoy their company. Our home provides us with stability so that we can fulfil ourselves in work, hobbies and relationships. It gives us a place within our community and a sense of belonging. To be without a home is to be vulnerable both physically and emotionally … It is easy to think that people become homeless through their own fault or because they can not be bothered to put in the effort to change their situation. Listening to people who are homeless reveals quite a different story."
It goes on to give the heartbreaking stories of three different people.
Homelessness blights many lives. It is right that this problem be highlighted in the Assembly and that we should attempt to mitigate its effects. I congratulate Mr ONeill for moving the motion. I am pleased to see the Minister for Social Development taking note of the sentiments being expressed.
At one time it was fashionable for to speak of the "deserving poor" and the "undeserving poor". I am glad that such attitudes are disappearing, though some parts of society still have a considerable way to go. In dealing with homelessness, we do not nowadays differentiate between those who have contributed to their situation and those who, through no fault of their own, have ended up with problems.
As we try to alleviate the problem and assist people to find a suitable home rather than leave them to live rough, we should pay tribute to the Housing Executive for the positive steps that it has taken to house those in categories A1 and A2 with urgent needs. The Housing Executive is at the sharp end of the problem and, with a limited budget, can do only so much. A more proactive approach to the problem is needed.
People find themselves without a home for different reasons. Young girls become pregnant, leave home and need accommodation in a hurry. Growing numbers of people from all age groups find life difficult and end up sleeping on the streets. The Simon Community brochure shows that 40% are homeless due to disputes with partners, families or friends; 10% of cases are due to eviction or failed tenancies; and 9% were intimidated out of their homes by others. Mr ONeill also referred to that.
The figures speak for themselves. Some 10,997 households presented as homeless to the Housing Executive. The Simon Community received 4,065 referrals from people seeking accommodation, of whom half were under 25, one quarter were female and one quarter had slept rough. Homelessness crosses the boundaries of age, class, gender and religion. There may also be problems with alcohol or drugs, or, perhaps a young person has outstayed his welcome at home and has been shown the door.
Sheltered accommodation may be available for those with educational difficulties, and there are some excellent schemes. Voluntary agencies such as the Salvation Army and the Simon Community are to be congratulated on the difficult work they do. However, it is up to the Executive and the Assembly to provide the impetus to deal with this growing problem.
The motion is directed at the Minister for Social Development, which is appropriate. However, it is not just his Department that should be involved. The Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety should be involved too. She is responsible for health promotion and social services, which could help here. The Department of Education may also have a role to play. Many factors lead to homelessness, and some are connected to the education system, which should be more proactive in guiding the young on sexual issues and the misuse of drugs and alcohol. We do not need to follow Westminster and appoint a homelessness czar, but we urgently need a co-ordinated approach.
In the Programme for Government, the Executive spoke of a healthy society and social inclusion. We must ensure that those fine sentiments are not simply pious words and lipservice. It will be a step in the right direction if we can alleviate the serious problem of homelessness.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Cuirim fáilte roimh an rún agus tá mé buíoch de Éamonn ONeill as é a thabhairt os comhair an Tí. Ba mhaith liom tacaíocht a thabhairt don rún seo. I support the calls for an interdepartmental approach.
I am often reminded of the pyramid of needs, at the very bottom of which are accommodation, heating and food. There is no universally accepted definition of homelessness ní lia duine ná tuairim ar an ábhar seo. The debate on what constitutes homelessness, and how many people should be described as homeless, has run for years. Homelessness is a relative concept — it ranges from those who do not have a roof over their heads to those who live in insecure or poor, sub-standard accommodation in both urban and rural areas. The question of where on the continuum of housing need to demarcate "homelessness" is a political one, which is somewhat subjective.
The current response to homelessness by the statutory services is legislated for in the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. The Order makes the Housing Executive responsible for meeting the housing needs of homeless people as long as each person clears three hurdles — he must be perceived to be vulnerable; he must be in priority need; and he must not be intentionally homeless. In many cases, the Housing Executive places a homeless person in a hostel or temporary accommodation, where he remains until allocated a public-sector tenancy. The time for this allocation varies between areas, depending on the housing demand, and can range from 18 months to two years. The length of the waiting period can have serious health implications for the person caught in the homeless trap.
I do not want to repeat points made earlier, but I want the Assembly to address a number of proposals. I suggest that we allocate resources to increase public-sector housing and provide support for vulnerable public-sector tenants, so that their tenancies are maintained. We should also examine the high cost of rent in hostels and the length of time homeless persons remain there as well as promote the role of the private sector by supporting a percentage of those who are homeless with rent deposit schemes. We should also enhance the role of the private sector. It could meet the needs of those who are homeless but are not deemed to be priority cases by the Housing Executive. We should examine the reasons for people becoming homeless — in many instances a multitude of issues has affected an individual, resulting in homelessness. Education agencies have an important role to play in preventing this.
A strategic approach is needed to deal with the increasing number of homeless people who come to the Housing Executive each year. The lack of appropriate "move-on" accommodation is one of the major problems, as is the lack of support that would help homeless people keep their tenancies.
The availability of public-sector housing needs to be examined, if we are to address the very serious problems. Homeless people must have rights that are guarded through legislation, and ad hoc or short-term programmes to meet particular needs should be made possible. We must be proactive on homelessness, and — and this was highlighted by Mr Davis — a holistic approach is needed towards the personal experiences of people caught in this trap. No room must be left for inactivity.
Go raibh maith agat.

Mrs Eileen Bell: Some people in Northern Ireland, maybe even in the Assembly, think that we do not have a problem with homelessness and that this motion is irrelevant, but I congratulate Mr ONeill for moving it.
Although there is no obvious evidence of people sleeping on the streets, or of cardboard cities as in Dublin or London, this does not mean that they do not. According to organisations that work with the homeless, if people have no accommodation, they end up in places such as cemeteries. This is happening throughout the Province, not just in Belfast, and it is something that should not be allowed.
When legislation on this was eventually passed for Northern Ireland in 1988, coming into force on 1 April 1989, it was based upon the Westminster Act that had been in force for many years. As a result, the Housing (NI) Order 1988 benefited to a certain extent from lessons learned in England, Scotland and Wales over those 12 years, but for a variety of reasons it gave rise to considerable concern among housing experts. The most troubling of these was that, like the earlier Act, the Housing Order still ignored the single largest homeless group — single people, usually young single men.
Today Government figures show a 5% drop in homelessness during the last 12 months, while the Simon Community, which is faced with the single homeless, who are not recognised as such by the system, report a 4·7% increase during the same period. Lies, damned lies and statistics.
No one should be homeless, forced to sleep rough, sleep in hostels, occupy condemned premises or, worse still, cemeteries. It is alarming that 24% of some 4,000 people slept rough in the two weeks before they approached the Simon Community. People fleeing from intimidation or marital disputes further exacerbates the situation and helps to explain why they are not all seen lying on the streets.
We must ensure that the problem is met head-on. We must help the Ministers of all Departments to achieve this aim. The £30,000 announced by Minister Durkan at Christmas was only the quick application of sticking plaster, and to be honest I do not think that anyone thought it was otherwise.
Consistent financing is essential, but we must provide proper accommodation and solve the other associated problems. We can continue to support the efforts of the Housing Executive, the Simon Community, Shelter (NI) Ltd, the Salvation Army and other organisations to alleviate homelessness.
The current figure of 10,997 homeless reported by the Housing Executive does not take into consideration the proportion of the people who approached the Simon Community. They are not included in the official figures. We must, as a supposedly caring society, face up to our responsibilities. A roof over one’s head is the most basic right, surpassing all human rights apart from the rights to life and food.
The young are suffering most given the numbers involved, and that is not surprising since the vast majority do not qualify for inclusion in homelessness statistics. Families must continue to get priority, but that does not justify ignoring the young and leaving them to voluntary organisations. They are human beings like we are with the same human rights, even if some of them have never had a job.
The Programme for Government recognises the need for all Departments to work together with outside organisations to alleviate the problems of vulnerable people. Education, health and job provision are major factors in reducing the number of homeless. Joined-up government is the way forward, and we have acknowledged this many times. I hope that we will put our words into action.
The motion recognises that this problem does not, as Mr ONeill said, just exist at Christmas. It needs attention throughout the year. I will be interested to hear from the Minister if any plans have been drawn up for the Supporting People initiative, which his Department will be striving to put into action.
I support the motion and hope that the Ministers will do something about it.

Mr Norman Boyd: Regrettably, homelessness is a growing problem, with nearly 12,000 households presenting as homeless to the Housing Executive annually. Homelessness is particularly poignant at Christmas, but it remains a serious problem throughout the year. Last year, as several Members have said, the charity that takes the lead in tackling homelessness here, the Simon Community, was approached by over 4,000 people for help. Only 1,100 were able to get accommodation. That represented a 4·7% increase on the previous year, so it is wrong to take the Housing Executive’s figure of a 5% decrease in isolation.
The most frightening aspect is that the majority of the homeless, 54%, are aged 25 years or under, and almost one quarter reported sleeping rough for up to 14 days before, 23% of whom were female. There is great concern about the increasing number of homeless young people, particularly among 16- and 17-year-olds, and the growing number of teenage parents. About one in 10 of the teenagers living with the Simon Community are parents separated from their children, either voluntarily or against their wishes. This is horrific. In addition, a significant number of teenage women in Simon Community houses are pregnant. People can be without a home for many reasons including family conflict, physical violence, intimidation, relationship breakdown and financial difficulties, including the most vulnerable in society.
People’s attitudes to homelessness must be changed. Many perceive the homeless to be middle-aged males with a drink problem, but any one of us could be without a home, given the wrong set of circumstances. Safe and affordable housing is a right. Research by the Simon Community shows that only 4% of the population have any accurate understanding of the facts of homelessness. To many in Northern Ireland it is a problem for London, Manchester and Dublin, but not for Belfast.
We have a shortage of housing that is suitable and affordable for single people and small families seeking to establish themselves or re-establish themselves at the lower income level of the market.
The number of housing repossessions has increased dramatically in recent years. Housing has become an investment opportunity for individuals and companies seeking to make money. The concept of social housing as part of the necessary fabric of society has been predominantly lost.
The numbers sleeping rough are growing significantly. Homelessness is not confined to large cities. Research carried out by the Simon Community shows substantial homelessness in regional areas. Figures from the Simon Community and the Housing Executive show a large increase in the numbers looking for help in Newtownards, Banbridge, Newry, Ballymena, Antrim, Larne, Ballymoney, Coleraine, Londonderry, Magherafelt and Strabane. The most marked increases are in Newry, Ballymena, Antrim, Coleraine and Strabane. Is it possible to get out of the cycle of "No job, no hope, no home"?
The Simon Community and other charities for the homeless help people build the skills necessary for coping with everyday life at home, such as cooking, managing finances and surviving on a low income. However, the proposed changes to housing benefit will have an adverse effect on these support services. The annual budget for the Simon Community in Northern Ireland is about £3·5 million. At present, rent from residents, which in the majority of cases is covered by housing benefit, makes up just under 50% of the Simon Community’s total income.
Housing benefit covers the upkeep of accommodation houses and the support services provided by its staff. However, the Government are introducing changes to housing benefit. In future, housing benefit will only cover the upkeep of accommodation houses. Support services will be covered by a new fund called Supporting People. The Simon Community will have to bid for this funding on a project-by-project basis, and it is concerned that the bids from all the agencies will exceed the funding available.
This poses a threat to a vital income source and will have adverse consequences for the accommodation and support services that the Simon Community and other homeless charities provide. I share the Simon Community’s grave concerns about this. This is even more worrying given the increase in the number of people seeking accommodation from the organisation.
Homelessness is something that I feel particularly strongly about. During a visit to the Simon Community in Larne a few months ago, I was able to see the essential services that it provides for homeless people throughout the south and east Antrim areas — indeed, throughout Northern Ireland.
Homelessness is a serious problem that needs to be addressed as a priority. There must be adequate investment to improve the housing stock, and particularly vacant properties. People are entitled to housing that fully meets their diverse needs.
The shortage of suitable, affordable and accessible accommodation must be urgently addressed, and an overall improvement in the standard of social housing will have a positive impact on homelessness.

Prof Monica McWilliams: The homeless are not a homogeneous community. They can split into various groups. I want to focus on young people who have been at the centre of much of what we have been talking about.
There are, of course, other important groups, such as older people who become homeless, lone parents, those with mental health problems, travellers, ex-prisoners and, more recently, sex offenders. Because they cannot find a house, they are vulnerable, being shifted from place to place. I will return to that later. I want to deal with the key issues, the reasons for homelessness among young people.
One of the major problems is family conflict and breakdown — what happens when there is divorce or domestic violence or when a stepfather moves in and a young person cannot relate to him. There are major conflicts and, unfortunately, homelessness can be a consequence. Then we have physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Poverty and anti-social behaviour, with which we are familiar, are important. I am increasingly having to deal with situations in which young people and families are being moved out by paramilitaries, mainly at the point of a gun or at the end of a baseball bat, and into areas such as south Belfast, which is perceived to be mixed. We need an inter-agency community response to let these new residents know that they have responsibilities and rights.
A way should be found to reconcile the community with a group that is known as having been moved from elsewhere. That is at the core of what we are discussing. If we keep moving people from area to area, we increase homelessness. We must get to the root cause with the various agencies. Until the education welfare officer, the Housing Executive, juvenile liaison officers, probation officers and all relevant individuals are round a table together, we are simply dealing with poor residents trying to address each element of bureaucracy in isolation. People get fed up and say that they want the Housing Executive to move this family or individual out by next week — and round and round it goes.
The situation is serious for young people leaving care. I was shocked to learn that within six months, 23% of such young people are homeless. The word "care" may not apply when we consider what happens to them once they move out of the residential accommodation age bracket.
Recently, the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety looked at this matter. Statistics tell us that family homelessness may be going down, but homelessness among young people is increasing. It is clear that over half the homeless are in the under-25 age bracket, and the Minister may want to look at the issue with regard to the selection of the age applying to the different groups. For people over 25, certain rules apply for benefits and selection for permanent housing. For people over 18 and under 25 different rules apply, and if they are between 16 and 18 the rules are different again. The system should be reviewed and the procedures for the different age brackets tied up. People should not be passed over just because they move from one age group to another.
I am also concerned about legislative changes, and this is not an issue solely for the Minister for Social Development. We need an inter-agency approach to the New Deal. It is argued that elements of the New Deal initiative have indirectly created homelessness. A young person moving out of care may not be able or eligible to take up a gateway project. This person is also cut off from jobseeker’s allowance because he is not seen as a priority, and that creates homelessness, poverty and, no doubt, some anti-social behaviour. If people are cut off from a chance to earn money, burglaries will result.
I have experience of working in refuges for people made homeless as a result of domestic violence, and one of the greatest initiatives has been second-stage housing — what is known as aftercare or "move on" accommodation. If refuges and hostels become a permanent solution for those fortunate enough to get a place in temporary accommodation, others needing such temporary help are blocked. A quick throughput of hostel and refuge accommodation should be a priority. Those seeking public-sector housing should immediately be given A1 status, and thus priority, and second-stage housing must be provided, so that people can move out quickly letting others in. We need to address that urgently.
Special health and social care support has already been mentioned by Members who referred to Simon Community projects. We need to give these projects core-funding. People should not have to rattle tin cans outside Woolworths. If the projects work and are good practice, let us fund them. They are run by voluntary organisations. The Simon Community has faced a deficit for three years in a row even though it has brought in most of its money itself. We must continue to support it. An inter-agency approach is required, because it takes more than a roof to tackle homelessness.

Mr John Tierney: I support the motion and congratulate my Colleague, Mr ONeill, for moving it. I also congratulate the Minister for the additional funding of £30,000 over Christmas. Some Members have said that it will not make a dent in the problem, but the additional money is recognition that there is a problem.
My first speech to the House was on the Housing Executive’s budget, and a large part of it was devoted to the homeless. I pointed out the problems that the homeless face in my area. Suggestions have been made about how to tackle the different problems that different areas clearly have.
If you present yourself as homeless to the Housing Executive in my area, a number of things happen. If you are a lone parent, for example, you will be put up in temporary accommodation, so long as it is available. In some cases accommodation is not available and people are asked to wait, sometimes for weeks. Homeless people get temporary accommodation, perhaps not immediately, but they are also told that they will be living in that accommodation for over a year, perhaps for a year and a half. People who are homeless in my area with no priority need — and this was touched on by Mr ONeill — are told that they will probably be housed in a couple of years’ time.
Ms McWilliams rightly said that money is needed for new building so that people with priority get the houses they need. That would free up spaces for the homeless. A number of extra spaces have been made available in the Derry area, and I congratulate the Housing Executive and the voluntary agencies on that. However, it still has not reached the stage where somebody can present himself as homeless and be allocated temporary accommodation on the same day.
These individuals will have to wait until there is new building and people with priority needs can move out of temporary accommodation and let them move in. I heard somebody talking about figures on an annual basis, but you can produce figures on a daily basis. At least one person presents himself as homeless each day, only to find that nothing can be done for him, and that is disgraceful.
Mr ONeill touched on another valid point. An additional problem for those people who do not have priority needs is that if they are put into hostels, they slip out of the network of agencies that should be there for them. They are left to their own devices. Such people do their best to get out of hostels and into some kind of property, normally in the private sector, which they cannot afford.
Like most Members who have spoken, I agree with the proponent that a number of agencies must get involved, and if we are asking agencies to work with the homeless and solve the problem, our Ministers and Departments should be working together to try to solve it too.
I am glad that the Minister is here. He has spoken to the Committee about this problem. He is concerned about it, as we all are. Most of the contributors to the debate have recognised that this is not a problem for the Minister for Social Development alone. On the contrary, a number of Ministers and Committees should get involved, and I urge them all to do just that.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am going to obey the normal ruling and not repeat the plethora of points already made, most of which I agree with. I just want to deal with two aspects of homelessness that have not yet been mentioned.
I hope that my first point will not be misinterpreted. We must be careful, as we discuss this matter, that we do not encourage the trend of people declaring themselves homeless. Many are homeless as a result of circumstances absolutely and totally beyond their control; we all sympathise with that.
I am sure every Member doing constituency work has come across the view that the easy way out of a difficult family situation is for the parents to throw the young person out, or for the young person to leave home. I have come across two such instances in the past couple of weeks. As a member of a party that emphasises the importance of families, I say that we must not devise policies that could make this seem an easy option for young people or their parents.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Does the Member accept that most research carried out by the Council for the Homeless shows that the number making themselves intentionally homeless is minimal while the focus seems to be on the sort of exceptional cases to which he refers? As a result, attention is diverted from the core problem.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I accept that the bulk of cases are as the Member says, and I emphasised that at the start of my speech. I recognise that the majority who present themselves as homeless are genuine cases and that they are homeless due to circumstances beyond their control. I stressed that I wanted to address issues that no other Member had addressed, so I said that policy should not encourage those who might believe that homelessness is an easy way out of a domestic situation that cannot be resolved.
There is an obligation on public bodies to deal with this, and public money must be spent either through support to a number of organisations — and several have been mentioned — or through the provision of housing. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the homeless are young and single, people who by nature tend to be the more mobile members of society. We must also examine the provision of housing through the private sector, which might require less capital and could be an easier route to take.
This could be done in a number of ways, one of which has already been mentioned. Some people could secure private-sector housing if they could afford a deposit. The Minister should examine this. If the only impediment to securing alternative accommodation is a deposit, that should be made available.
Another point, which is especially true in parts of Belfast where private landlords hold a large part of the housing stock, is that they, or the estate agents that look after properties for them, should have access to the homeless list, although care would need to be taken with data protection. They should be able to offer accommodation to homeless young people just as the Housing Executive and others do, and information on available housing offers should be made more accessible to them.
Many other points that I wished to make have already been made, and I do not want to reiterate them. Those are two aspects that no Members had dealt with to date. I hope that they are not taken out of context, but they are pertinent to the debate and ought to be considered.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Like many others, I want to look especially at the plight of the increasing number of homeless young people, for whom there is no adequate provision. Some are young, single people under 25, and some are children whose families are homeless.
Recent figures from the Housing Executive show that in 1999-2000, 824 in the 16-18 age group and 1,690 in the 19-25 age group presented themselves as homeless. These figures give cause for concern but are only the tip of the iceberg. There are many young people who do not present themselves as homeless to the Housing Executive because there is little chance of getting any type of accommodation.
We have already heard that the Simon Community’s statistics show that 54% of people approaching it for emergency accommodation are aged 25 or under. Of the total number of referrals, almost 25% said that they had been sleeping rough in the two weeks prior to being referred.
There is particular concern about the increase in homelessness among 16-to-17-year olds, and the most frequent reason given is family conflict, which has already been mentioned. These people are among our most vulnerable, and there is a high incidence of poverty, unemployment, sexual and physical abuse and family breakdown. Many were in care or prison before becoming homeless.
There is no specific agency for dealing with homeless young, single people and no statutory provision for accommodating those in the 16-19 age group. Their needs are not being considered when housing policy is being formulated, and I ask the Minister to take this into account from now on.
Only a limited number of places are available through organisations such as the Simon Community, and demand far outstrips that number. Many have to resort to the private rented sector, but that housing is often overpriced and of poor quality, which has a detrimental effect on their health and development.
Support services to enable such young people to develop and live independently are limited, and they frequently find themselves homeless again, unable to cope with their situation. Often they are underachievers educationally, and their housing conditions only serve to exacerbate the situation. Child poverty is a major issue. Last July, following the comprehensive spending review, Chancellor Gordon Brown said that the Government’s aim was to halve and then abolish child poverty. What, if any, initiatives does the Minister’s Department intend to take to address child poverty here?
We have no mechanisms to provide decent accommodation for single young people, and one third of them and our children are living in poverty. We have the third- youngest population in the European Union, and our spending per capita on children’s services is significantly lower than in England.
Many children experience family breakdown, poverty and homelessness at an early age, and there is a significant link between poverty, ill health and low educational achievement. We need a co-ordinated and concerted effort across all Departments to work alongside and utilise the skills and experience of organisations in the voluntary and community sectors and develop a strategy to deal with child poverty organisations such as like Save the Children, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardos, Child Care NI and the Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network.
Young people deserve access to quality accommodation and support that will enable them to live independently, and they deserve access to training and employment. I hope that the children’s fund, together with more statutory provision, will help alleviate the situation in the short term and develop preventative solutions to the barriers that young people face to overcoming social disadvantage.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I will do my best to address the points that have been made. If I fail to address them all due to time constraints or an oversight, I will deal with them in writing.
Before I deal with the provisions of the motion, some points must be made to put homelessness in context. All Members sympathise with those who do not, for whatever reason, have safe, comfortable and regular accommodation. The Christmas and new year period brings into focus the differences between the homeless and those of us who can enjoy the comfort of our homes and the company of family and friends. I pay tribute to the many organisations that worked over the festive period to help the homeless with accommodation and the other comforts that the rest of us take for granted.
Some Members, particularly Mr ONeill, rightly acknowledged the additional £30,000 that the Department of Finance and Personnel made available. That relatively small sum was welcomed by a number of organisations. I do not want to take undue credit. The money was supplied by the Department of Finance and Personnel, and my Department was happy to be the conduit for its delivery.
Homelessness can become a reality for people at any time, and I am concerned to ensure that the services provided by the statutory agencies and voluntary sector partners serve the homeless at the first point of need and on an ongoing basis. The Housing Executive has a statutory duty to ensure that accommodation is made available to those who present as homeless and meet the statutory criteria that they are homeless, in priority need and not homeless intentionally.
About 45% of such households meet the criteria, so about 4,500 households are awarded full homelessness status in the common selection scheme, and around 40%, approximately 4,500, of new tenancies are awarded to them. Not all those tenancies are of new properties, but those that are cost around £20 million a year. That represents significant resources going directly to homeless people.
The Housing Executive’s performance is such that 65% of homeless households are allocated secure tenancies within 12 weeks of being accepted as homeless, so they have faster access to social housing than most other groups on the social housing waiting list.
The Housing Executive also supports the voluntary sector’s delivering accommodation and other services for the homeless. While that sector’s resources come primarily from the housing benefit system, the Housing Executive has been increasing its support, with £1·2 million budgeted for the current year.
The sector is assisted to a lesser extent by health and social services boards and trusts, the Probation Board and charitable sources. Some Members mentioned the cross-cutting nature of the problem, and I assure them that the Department for Social Development is not the only Department involved in this.
Returning for a moment to the assessment process, if the Housing Executive has reason to believe that an applicant is homeless and in priority need, it is required to ensure that accommodation is made available pending enquiries. The term "priorityneed" includes people with families, young persons at risk of sexual or financial exploitation, single parents and other vulnerable people. Applicants assessed as meeting the statutory homelessness criteria and seeking social housing are added to the common waiting list and attract homelessness status in the common selection scheme for tenancies of Housing Executive and housing association properties. Where the Housing Executive is satisfied that an applicant became homeless intentionally but has a priority need, it is required to ensure that he is accommodated
"for such a period as it considers will give the person a reasonable opportunity of securing accommodation".
Those who do not meet the criteria are owed no duty by the Housing Executive and must make their own arrangements. The Housing Executive will continue to provide advice and direct individuals to other providers. It can accept applicants to the common waiting list, albeit with lower priority than might have been so.
The motion suggests that homelessness is increasing and will continue to do so. Since the mid-1990s there has been an increase in the numbers being accepted as meeting the statutory criteria for homelessness. More recent experience, however, shows that this number is no longer increasing. Rather it is remaining relatively constant.
Members will not be surprised that in the current financial year intimidation is a significant cause of homelessness. MsMcWilliams touched on that. This can distort trends, and the current trend will not necessarily continue. However, under the current arrangements, any increase in the numbers accepted as homeless will mean an increase in the number of social-housing tenancies awarded to the homeless with a consequent decrease in allocations to other needy groups.
The motion asks about future plans to deal with homelessness. Members will appreciate that addressing this matter needs a partnership effort from the Housing Executive, housing associations and a variety of voluntary sector organisations. The availability of accommodation in the private-rented sector will also play a key part. I can report a number of developments on each of these fronts.
Given that the Housing Executive has been addressing this problem for some 10years, it is timely to look afresh at how it might be dealt with in future. The Housing Executive is at an advanced stage with developing a strategy for a root-and-branch review of the homelessness problem and possible solutions. The review will examine, among other things, trends, programmes, services, gaps in provision and differences between urban and rural homelessness. It is anticipated that a document will be published by the spring of the coming financial year for the widest possible consultation.
While the strategic review is under way, a number of ongoing plans and programmes deserve mention. The new-build programme delivered by housing associations addresses the permanent accommodation needs of homeless households and delivers temporary accommodation schemes identified by the Housing Executive. In addition, there are special schemes — for example, foyers, which link accommodation to the provision of training and job related services.
The private-rented sector is also recognized as a valuable source of temporary and permanent accommodation. The Housing Executive only uses private-rented accommodation on a temporary basis and as a last resort, particularly where the number and geographical dispersal of homeless households do not justify the provision of hostels.
However, I wish to reassure Members about the standards of such properties. The Housing Executive does a rigorous assessment to ensure that specific criteria are met before letting them to the homeless.
Members may be aware that the Housing Executive supports a number of rent guarantee schemes to enable homeless people to rent permanent, private-sector accommodation without having to pay the usual deposits. Other schemes of this nature are being considered for other parts of Northern Ireland.
Lastly, the Housing Executive currently provides financial and personal support to a number of research projects being undertaken by groups such as the Simon Community to examine the underlying causes of homelessness as it affects various groups such as young people leaving care and families with young children. The results of this research will help to inform the planned strategic review. I am sure that we all commend the Housing Executive’s proactive approach in this regard.
Before closing, I want to turn again to the additional funding that was made available over Christmas. On that occasion, my Department and the Housing Executive, as I said earlier, merely acted as conduits to ensure that the £30,000 allocated by the Department of Finance and Personnel reached the agencies providing services to the homeless. Undoubtedly, this gesture will have raised expectations for the future, and it would be worthwhile examining if and how those expectations can be met.
Roles, responsibilities, authority and lines of communication have to be addressed, and my officials will discuss these matters with the Department of Finance and Personnel and others as appropriate.
I trust that my comments have served to assure Members that I take homelessness very seriously. As with most other programmes, additional resources would allow an increase in types and levels of service. However, there are other important housing priorities that must be addressed, including unfitness, the needs of the disabled, the elderly, travellers and other vulnerable groups, energy, efficiency, conservation and fuel poverty. I will seek to ensure that resources to deal with homelessness are maximized where possible, given these other competing priorities.
So that future policies, programmes and services for the homeless are as focused and effective as possible, and as a background to future funding decisions, I encourage Members to comment fully when the strategic review is launched, and I am absolutely confident that many Members will do just that.
I now wish to turn to some of the specific issues raised, and one thread seemed to run right through most of the speeches made. Mr ONeill, Mr Shannon, Mr Boyd and Ms Lewsley voiced their concerns about homelessness among the young. I would like to deal with that.
In the 16-to-25 age group, around 2,500 single people, male and female, presented themselves as homeless last year, 22% of the overall number. Current figures show that, by the end of October 2000, 1,226 young people had presented themselves as homeless, of whom 555 were accepted as such. Changes in society mean that younger people can be at greater risk of becoming homeless, and the review, which I have already mentioned, will address the needs and circumstances of younger people.
It may be out of sequence, but Mr Shannon’s point follows from that. He asked about what happens to people who are not accepted as homeless by the Housing Executive. Pending its decisions on statutory homelessness, applicants are directed to a variety of temporary accommodation. The Housing Executive’s homeless advice service contacts appropriate voluntary accommodation providers and arranges referrals. A number of voluntary agencies cater specifically for young people, and the Simon Community deals with those under 18 years of age.

Mr Speaker: We normally, as a rule of thumb, give Ministers 10 minutes per hour of debate, which is about 15 minutes in the context of a 90-minute debate. I know that Members want a response from the Minister, but I must encourage him to bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Mr Speaker, you have been generous with my time allocation. There were many other questions that I wanted to answer, but I will finish with the point made by Mr ONeill about homeless people who have mental health problems. That is an important matter, and I would like to take one minute to deal with it.
The Housing Executive supported financially the research to which Mr ONeill referred. Subsequently, with health and social service trusts, it has been funding a support team to address mental illness among homeless people in Belfast hostels. The strategic review will consider if we need to expand that service.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I want to thank all Members who participated for their very detailed speeches. It was good to see such tremendous support for the motion. It will not be necessary to comment on each speech, as that would only be to cover the same ground again. However, I particularly thank the Minister for what he said.
I welcome the news about the review into homelessness, and I am glad to hear that we may get a report in the spring. I look forward to that. I was making a point about the statistical side of the problem. There was a little doubt — and some Members referred to this — about the statistics and their meaning. I commented on those people who present themselves, and the Minister said that 45% of them are accepted. However, there is considerable criticism about the level of acceptance.
Many people should be described as homeless but, for whatever reason, are not so accredited by the system. The problem is much worse than the statistics show. That explains why the statistics that I was using, and the statistics that some Members referred to, which came from voluntary bodies, showed a different trend to the one that the Minister described as having become static. That is all the more reason for this review to examine how efficient we are at looking at and quantifying the problem.
I know Sammy Wilson was not saying what he might be accused of saying when he talked about being careful in case some people regarded homelessness as an easy option. Monica McWilliams dealt with that well. I assure him that it is not an easy option to be on the streets or live in a cardboard box. I am sure that he knows that. He was preaching caution, and I accept his comment in that vein.
As I said in my opening remarks, some control is needed because there has been evidence of abuse. As the Minister said, it can be a fast route to getting accommodation. Some unscrupulous people may attempt to use that and thus discredit deserving cases, but if the level of control is holding back genuine cases, that must be changed. I hope that the review, when completed, will give some hope to those people who I believe, as do many others, are missing out.
We could, as an Assembly, continue to knock on the Minister for Social Development’s door, which appears to be fairly open, to try to get more movement on this. Most Members talked about the need for cross-departmental work, and I am particularly anxious about a corporate approach to the problem.
More too should be done for social care. While gathering information for today I went to Brunswick House in Belfast. It is a wet centre — perhaps the only one in Northern Ireland — that deals with very challenging people indeed, and I heard of a case that really shocked me. A handicapped woman in a wheelchair had been put out of a private nursing home. This person was not able to change her clothes or use the toilet on her own. She was on the streets of Belfast for twodays and nights until people from Brunswick House discovered her and brought her to the attention of the social services. They then had tremendous trouble getting her looked after.
Whatever her personal problems are — and I am sure that they are difficult — what kind of society do we have in which something like that, an indictment of our system, can happen? That was proof to me that we are not doing nearly enough, and I hope that today marks the beginning of a new determination to tackle the problem. I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, and all Members for their comments.
Resolved:
That this Assembly calls on the Minister for Social Development to make greater provision for people presenting themselves as homeless during this time of the year and to outline his plans to deal with the increasing numbers of homeless people throughout the year.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Speaker]

Community Sector Job Losses (West Belfast)

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat a Chathaoirligh. Given the lateness of the hour, I will try to be brief.
We have had numerous debates about unemployment in a number of constituencies. However, I am trying to draw out the distinctive and unique effect that possible job losses that have been identified in West Belfast are likely to have on the constituency, more so perhaps than a similar or equivalent number of job losses would have in any other area. This was obvious recently in Fermanagh, the shipyard and other areas where impending job losses were quite rightly brought to the public’s attention, and people lobbied and campaigned to try to save them.
The uniqueness of the community sector, in West Belfast in particular, can have a double-whammy effect. There are around 900 jobs there, and that may make it the area’s most important employer. It is a double whammy because irrespective of how many of those 900 jobs are lost as a result of European Urban Regeneration gap funding or the new criteria stipulated for the peace money, for example, the Peace II initiative, almost all are in organising crèches, training or other employment initiatives. Most of those jobs themselves provide services.
Over the years many have talked about the good infrastructure in West Belfast. The area is renowned for its effective, vibrant and strong community sector. I pay tribute to those who have worked there and the people from the statutory bodies and other agencies who have worked with them trying to develop the cocktails of funding and create sustainable jobs.
Nevertheless, one of the successes of that infrastructure has been that it has, by default, masked the real difficulties of unemployment. West Belfast, like many other areas, has suffered infrastructure difficulties for years with employment, and I will not go into the legacy of discrimination. It is well documented that there has been no inward investment and few real jobs created in the area for years.
I thank Sir Reg Empey, who has been working with the local MP, among others, on establishing a taskforce to examine unemployment and how employment might be achieved. That is a worthwhile enterprise that he and other Ministers will be dealing with, and I look forward to a positive result from their work. However, this will not deal with the job losses that we expect soon or, specifically, with the fact that many of the jobs that will be lost help to provide much-needed services.
I hope to explore this issue with the Department for Social Development and, indeed, any other Department. I also hope to get a report commissioned on the impact of these job losses. They do not just affect individuals; they affect the local economy and the important services that they provide.
The Good Friday Agreement promised new economic and urban redevelopment strategies. The Programme for Government detailed how the Departments will develop such strategies, particularly urban regeneration strategies. I will continue to monitor progress on this and seek the extra budgets that will make those promises realisable. The West Belfast area will face a difficult period soon, particularly with European Union gap funding whose new criteria will bring about the loss of many jobs.
I appeal to the Minister for Social Development and his Colleagues to consider a report into the impact of these job losses on the West Belfast area. I am concerned about the number of individual jobs and the services they provide. Important infrastructure has been established over the years on which any future Government strategy could build. An impact assessment of this loss must be carried out.
I want to pay tribute to agencies working with the local people, and I refer not just to those in paid employment who provide a much-needed community service but to the many people, about 3,000, who, we are told, work on a voluntary basis. Most of the paid workers are on short-term contracts and low pay, and very often the posts are part-time. Most of the jobs are subject to renewal or are constantly under threat. Many of the organisations that employ these people spend much time trying to garner a cocktail of funding to keep their own projects alive.
I want to put on record my appeal to the Minister for Social Development and his Colleagues for an impact assessment to be carried out. This is not only a loss of jobs themselves, it is also the loss of a whole array of much-needed services the West Belfast constituency.
I thank Members who are here to take part in the debate and pay tribute to the workers in the west of the city who are highlighting the plight of their jobs and the plight of the valuable services they provide.

Mr Alex Attwood: I acknowledge Alex Maskey’s tabling of this subject for debate on the Adjournment. It is timely to consider job losses in the community sector in West Belfast and to comment on that sector’s development in the past, at present and in the future. It is also important — and I am sure that all parties will agree on this — to acknowledge that all communities have been immensely resilient and resourceful over the past 30 years. While they do differ, we must acknowledge that that resilience and resourcefulness are shared and that they, not least in West Belfast, have been essential in ensuring that our civil conflict did not give rise to even more deeply damaging civil disorder. It is a reflection on the communities of which we speak that they have maintained those values in very adverse circumstances.
It is also important to acknowledge that we talk about different levels of community development in different areas of West Belfast. Historically, the communities that Alex Maskey, Joe Hendron and I represent have had a higher level of development, perhaps because of church organisations, sports organisations and the need to organise to meet demands that the state did not meet. Conversely, the Unionist communities of West Belfast have, historically and to a degree, had a different level of development. Put rather simplistically, rightly or wrongly, the communities of the Shankill Road, the Woodvale Road and the Unionist areas of West Belfast believed that the state answered their needs. Partly as a consequence, they did not develop as communities in the way that Nationalist communities of West Belfast developed since partition, and particularly over the past 30 years.
It is unfortunate that Ian Paisley Jnr is not here. On the weekend after the 1994 IRA ceasefire, he and the political parties on the Shankill Road organised "Shankill ’94". This gave expression to the fact that while there had not been such a high level of community development as on the Falls Road, the Shankill communities were organising themselves to make demands of the state about economic, social and cultural regeneration. That is developing on the Shankill Road in a healthy and creative way.
As the community sector has developed in West Belfast there has been a loss in one respect, and that is the loss of volunteerism. Volunteerism has existed in Ireland for decades and generations and has to some degree been lost as a more professional community sector has developed. While that has brought about many gains, there have also been losses. It would be helpful and creative for communities if the tradition of volunteerism could be revived.
I want to put the motion in a broader context. One cannot talk about job losses in West Belfast without identifying the level of job opportunities or lack thereof. As it is, over 10% of unemployed people in Northern Ireland live in the constituency of West Belfast, and 17·5% live in North and West Belfast. Male unemployment in West Belfast is three times the average in Northern Ireland, and that is without touching upon the differential between Catholic and Protestant unemployment there.
While the most recent evidence shows some decline in unemployment in the Nationalist wards, it is in the Shankill wards that unemployment is beginning to increase. While Mr Maskey is right to say that there is a large concentration of community jobs in West Belfast, other jobs are needed to bring about regeneration and address the human trauma and tragedy that lie behind the figures I have given. With over 900 people, the community sector in West Belfast is one of the largest employers and should be judged and developed against demanding criteria.
The first criterion that MrMaskey mentioned is that valid projects are beginning to suffer from a lack of European peace money. Before Christmas the Minister of Finance and Personnel outlined proposals to deal with what he called "gap funding" — the period between the end of one phase of European funding and the commencement of another. That must be addressed immediately because valid projects throughout West Belfast need to be sustained quickly. I have been in correspondence with Sean Farren, not the Minister, Maurice Morrow, about some of them. I am sure that the Minister and his civil servants are scribbling mightily in order to rebut that point. The added value of those projects to education and training means that they need to be sustained as soon as possible.
Secondly, we need a strategy in West Belfast that is not saturation. There has been a danger in recent years of a saturation of community organisation that is not necessarily consistent with the best strategy for regenerating the area. That is in no way to demean or diminish the individual contributions of community groups, activists and leaders. However, rather than have a saturation of organisations, we need to have strategies to ensure that that large employer in West Belfast makes the maximum impact. We also need a strategy that is not self-serving. If we are calling for open, transparent and accountable Government, the standards we demand of the Government should be no less than those we demand of other agencies, including community sector employers. There is a sense, to a greater or lesser extent, that the community sector is not as open, transparent and accountable as it could be. Cases have given rise to a growing belief that the community sector should uphold the standards that are demanded of Members here and the Government. There should be open, transparent and accountable procedures to ensure that people are satisfied with what community organisations are doing.
Thirdly, we need a strategy that sets the same standards for all communities, not least those in West Belfast. There is a sense that they look after the needs of their own rather than try to understand that the problems on either side of the peace walls in West Belfast are common problems, such as not having police officers living there, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, unemployment and bad housing.
The liberation of West Belfast will come when a strategy is developed that transcends the peace walls and applies to all communities the standards that we expect for our own. Any strategy to target social need must target all social need. No one community, community representative or community sector should be heard above another. They must all be heard in the same way.
Finally, the community sector is alive and well and bustling in parts of West Belfast and growing throughout West Belfast. It is vibrant and dynamic. It has a critical role in resources, leadership and its impact on the organisation and future development of a community. However, that work must be done in the context of the wider economic and social regeneration that Minister Empey is beginning to address. In that context, the issues raised by the motion will be fully and finally settled.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, Mr Speaker. I thank Alex Maskey for bringing to our attention job losses in West Belfast as a whole. He did not specify whether he was talking about Nationalist areas or Unionist areas; only Alex Attwood did that. West Belfast includes Twinbrook and Poleglass, which I represent.
The job losses will have a negative impact on West Belfast and further afield. Alex Maskey pointed out that there will be other effects. None of us should be under any illusion about why community structures and groups were set up in areas such as West Belfast. They were set up because councils failed to deliver the services they were supposed to deliver for the communities they claimed to represent.
We all agree that community groups provide a valued service. They have played a big part in the lives of all communities and helped them grow by adopting a bottom-up approach and providing services designed by the people. The lack of mainstream funding has been hidden by European funding which is supposed to be additional but is not. It has replaced mainstream funding, and that is wrong.
We debated a motion on skill shortages earlier. Tomorrow the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety will consider a report on teenage pregnancies and the need to educate young people to enable them to make better judgements. The report points out that rates of teenage parenthood are highest in areas of social deprivation and says that there is a need to target intervention on such areas, working in partnership with local communities. It also says that many community- based programmes receive only short-term funding and that if they are to be successful, they must be properly funded.
We need to look at the greater impact job losses will have in West Belfast. As MrMaskey said, not only is there an impact on a person who loses his job, but other areas suffer too. Crèche facilities will go, people will find it harder to return to work and after-school clubs will disappear, which will have a negative impact on the children. Women’s groups will no longer exist, while welfare advice, advice to the elderly and the homeless, whose problems were mentioned earlier, and youth provision will be things of the past. We need a joined-up approach. We can examine the Peace I and Peace II money.
The Minister is here, and I appreciate his staying for this debate, as he sat through the last one. I thank him for that.
As statistics show, the delay in Peace II money is forcing more job losses. MrMaskey and Mr Attwood referred to these statistics. We need to lobby for mainstream funding for community groups, workers, projects and running costs. We should develop a proper wage structure to bring employees out of low-paid jobs. We must ensure that there is a real and active commitment to targeting social need and equality. As Mr Maskey said, we need a strategic approach to sustain the community sector, and we should show our appreciation to all there for their vision and commitment to creating change.
Go raibh maith agat.

Dr Joe Hendron: I would like to thank Mr Maskey for initiating this important debate on the Adjournment. I also appreciate the presence of the Minister for Social Development. The Assembly, through the Executive and the Department for Social Development, must secure funding and develop a meaningful strategy for the voluntary and community sector in all areas of need though this debate is specifically about West Belfast, which includes a fair part of the Shankill territory as well as Nationalist West Belfast.
Many of the problems started when the ACE scheme and community workshops were run down. Why is there a crisis in funding jobs? As has been said, it is because there is no effective strategy to account for the community sector. I agree with the West Belfast Economic Forum that the voluntary activity unit in the Department must say exactly what groups will be affected by the rationalisation measures.
Many groups in West Belfast do not get mainstream funding from the Department for Social Development. The community sector should have a greater input into civic, political, social, cultural and economic matters. There is a major problem with gap funding, and bridging funding may be being applied selectively rather than liberally, although I hope, that that is not so. There is concern, and who will have the ability, integrity and authority to sort it out? I am not referring directly to the Minister.
As the then MP for West Belfast I met with Baroness Denton when she was Minister of Economic Development. I told her that in West Belfast, LEDU, the IDB and Making Belfast Work were all doing work, as were community trusts like North and West and that young people were coming to the area to do doctoral theses. There were many activities but no co-ordination. Mr Maskey has asked the Minister to undertake an impact assessment of the job losses. Perhaps the answer lies there.
There has been no co-ordination with jobs over the years, and that includes education, for a number of factors are involved. There is a large percentage of young people in West Belfast, so if you are talking about jobs you have to consider education. Whether they come from the Falls Road or the Shankill Road, five-year- olds starting school in that constituency are generally at a great disadvantage compared to children from more privileged homes or areas where people have good jobs. It is important to realise that a child’s IQ is not just inherited. Of course there are important genetic factors, but a child is also influenced by his home and environment from the moment he is born. Children in areas of social disadvantage are disadvantaged themselves by the age of five, and this has long term effects.
Much reference has been made to the many community efforts, and I will mention two in passing. Meánscoil Feirste almost went under because of the viability of numbers question. The community, the parents, the staff, Fergus O’Hare, the principal, and I were involved at the time. The then Minister, Michael Ancram, turned it down for funding, and it was the Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, who eventually gave it some support. I can recall the massive battle fought by the community.
Youth at Risk was another important community effort. Funding came from the Government and the European Union. I had some involvement because of my medical work. One could only be impressed by those people who were considered to be dropouts, young people who no one seemed to want and with very low esteem, sandwiched between the security forces and the paramilitaries. The results of the Youth at Risk programme were outstanding. I was emotionally moved when I met many of them later — once at a function in Andersonstown and on another occasion in the Markets area. The programme was stopped, but people like Jimmy Quinn played outstanding roles in it.
Targeting social need is central to the Assembly, and I wonder if community and voluntary groups will have any part in developing proposals for implementing the interdepartmental strategy document. Additionality must underpin the relationship with EU funding bodies, and all dealing with EU funds must be transparent, open for public scrutiny and accountable to the European Commission.
I again congratulate Mr Maskey for bringing this subject to Assembly. My support for the principles is total, and I support his point about impact assessment. Perhaps the Minister will address that.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am aware of the contribution made by the voluntary and community sector in West Belfast and Northern Ireland generally. It provides valuable services and is a significant employer, with a workforce of about 25,000 across the Province. This is an important debate for West Belfast, but it is relevant to all of Northern Ireland, especially to areas of high social need, of which West Belfast is one.
I met with the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) last week, and I have regular contact with a wide range of other voluntary and community groups, so I am aware of the real concerns in the sector about the impact of changing funding programmes.
Much funding for the sector is time limited, and we await final agreement on the outcome of the Peace II negotiations. European funding accounts for about one third of the total financial support for the voluntary and community sector in West Belfast, and I suspect that that level of dependence is similar in other parts of Northern Ireland.
While economic renewal is likely to be a priority under the new programme, the detailed parameters of Peace II are not yet agreed. Since the new funding programmes are meant to be finalised, it may be premature to identify any specific impact the changes will have. However, priorities change, and there is no guarantee that projects funded under Peace I will be supported automatically under Peace II. The project managers know this, having been made aware of the time-limited nature of the programme when they applied for funding in the first instance.
There are short-term difficulties and longer-term issues to be addressed too. Since it is taking longer than was envisaged to agree the mechanisms for disbursing Peace II and transitional Objective I programme funding, many valuable community projects face a gap between two funding programmes. My Department anticipated these difficulties and secured £4 million, in two tranches, to assist a wide range of projects and the people employed by them to continue their valuable work until the end of March 2001. This funding was shared with other Departments and funders to protect key projects.
The funding has benefited projects throughout Northern Ireland, including many in West Belfast. The Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust (NIVT) alone processed 29 applications from West Belfast for gap funding and provided almost £185,000 to secure the continuity of 23 posts until the end of March.
The West Belfast team of the Belfast Regeneration Office (BRO) has tried to maintain the community infrastructure in West Belfast, as other BRO teams have done in other parts of the city. In discussions with applicants, they have said that they will focus support on key organisations and posts. By "key" I mean organisations that provide a co-ordinating or broad service, for instance local forums. Key posts are ones that are central to an operation, such as managers and co-ordinators.
It is expected that these organisations will assist and support other groups that the BRO may not be able to support. I understand that this approach has been well received in West Belfast and that the BRO team has been able to meet, to varying degrees, the majority of requests made. The BRO teams in West Belfast and elsewhere have also met with other funders and statutory bodies to try to get them to provide support or match a contribution from a team, thus extending the funding period.
There is no complacency on our part about the problem. However, in the longer term the viability of many projects and the jobs they created will depend whether they become sustainable by generating their own income — a difficult, though not impossible, task. It will also depend on their ability to demonstrate their worth to funding bodies and to secure mainstream support for their activities.
Many groups have embarked on imaginative ways of generating finance through delivering services, sub-letting premises, amalgamation with other groups or restructuring. I welcome those moves. This proactive approach towards long-term sustainability by the voluntary and community sector will be a defining factor in the level of protection and development that can be achieved.
Despite this, there may well be further difficulties for some projects after the current gap funding initiatives end — from April 2001. I have asked my officials to review the situation urgently and consider what further action may be necessary. I am convinced of the need to provide continued support for the community and its infrastructure.
Let me say something about core infrastructure. The Department for Social Development is very aware of the importance of having an effective infrastructure to enable effective participation in addressing social need and social disadvantage. For the last round of gap funding we identified a number of criteria for eligibility for support. One was that an applicant group had a strategic role in relation to other groups, and another was the extent of the adverse impact on the community if a project ended. It seems to me that strategic support for the infrastructure is key and likely to inform our thinking on priorities for new EU funding under both the transitional Objective 1 and Peace II programmes.
I want briefly to identify my Department’s longer-term approach to supporting and developing the voluntary and community sector. We have focused on putting in place structures and funding strategies to help support the sector so that it remains strong, vibrant and able to help Government meet their objectives, particularly in areas of greatest social need.
The Department for Social Development’s actions will be driven by the need to ensure that when resources are scarce, they are targeted towards the right organisations in areas of greatest social need so that we achieve the best possible results. It is no secret that I have particular concerns about areas where the community infrastructure is weak. My Department consulted extensively on the Harbison Report, which examined the future funding of the voluntary and community sector. I cannot emphasis strongly enough the importance that the Department attaches to a more strategic and coherent approach to funding in the longer term. I expect to make an announcement shortly on the district councils’ community services programme following the Department’s review of that programme.
We are also working to strengthen and cement relationships with the voluntary and community sector right across the Government and in Departments and agencies, and we will continue to conduct our discussions with the sector in an open and constructive manner and in a spirit of partnership through such important vehicles as the Joint Government Voluntary and Community Sector Forum.
Following consultation, and as agreed by the Executive when they endorsed the compact between the Government and the voluntary and community sector in February 2000, the Department is co-ordinating work on a new strategy that will encompass all aspects of government. The result will be a plan setting out actions that Departments will take over the next three years to support the sector.
We are pragmatic and recognise that a substantial part of the sector’s contribution will continue to be through volunteering. We want to build lasting change by creating new volunteering opportunities, and not just where volunteering has traditionally been strong. NICVA says that there are over 79,000 volunteers, but despite this huge resource, some face barriers to volunteering that we want removed.
My Department is now implementing the Active Community Initiative action plan. Additional funds have been secured to enhance volunteering opportunities for those who wish to help shape their communities through voluntary action. It is designed to have an impact on areas of disadvantage.
In closing, the future of the voluntary and community sector must be a major concern for all. Its work has made, and will continue to make, a vibrant and dynamic contribution to society. Northern Ireland owes much to it, but we cannot duck the difficulties we face, and I do not want to minimise them. However, my Department is working hard to provide some protection.
All Departments must examine their budgets carefully to see if the programmes delivered through short-term funding can be sustained. The voluntary sector must examine options for rationalisation and collaboration to reduce costs and identify priorities. Shortly, the Joint Government Voluntary and Community Sector Forum, which my Department chairs jointly with the sector, will be working with the sector and the Government to see how these difficulties can be addressed and we can enable the sector to continue to make a dynamic contribution in West Belfast and Northern Ireland generally.
I want to address some of the other points raised during the debate if time is on my side.

Mr Speaker: Time is not on the Minister’s side, but those Members who have dutifully stayed on deserve some response. Perhaps the Minister will be as concise as possible.

Mr Maurice Morrow: A number of important points were raised by Members. Mr Speaker, I am at the mercy of your ruling. If I am not able to address such points, I will address them in writing to the Members concerned.
One very salient point was raised by Alex Attwood. It concerned the need for a strategy for the community and voluntary sector in West Belfast and elsewhere. Last year my Department, through its Voluntary Activity Unit (VAU), published the Harbison Report on funding.
That report contained important recommendations, which I will headline. A more strategic, co-ordinated approach to funding and the appointment of the Minister for Social Development to champion it were suggested. There was no lack of commitment from me or my Department. The integration of the VAU into an activity community unit was proposed, as were more information sharing between funders, the mapping of voluntary and community sector infrastructure, the establishment of a common database for funding, an integrated approach to development, the consolidation of delivery mechanisms, a task force to consider the diversification of funding and a clear definition of sustainability. It is an important report that I draw to Members’ attention.
Sue Ramsey mentioned the failure of councils to support communities. I can confirm that that was reflected in the findings of the review of the district council communities that the Department published. Proposals will be brought forward shortly on the role of councils in this regard. I hope that these comments go some way towards reassuring people that we are neither complacent nor negligent of our duties, and we want to record our appreciation of the voluntary sector, an important part of society.
Dr Hendron asked which groups would be affected by rationalisation. There is no planned process for rationalisation. We have to do all we can to protect the community sector. I understand that the motion specifically refers to West Belfast, but I am referring to the community as a whole.
Mr Speaker, you are looking at me, and I suspect that you are trying to tell me that my time is up. If I have missed any salient points, I will write to the individuals concerned.
Adjourned at 7.59 pm.